You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

To say that quantum theory is about describing how atoms behave would be like saying that all Hemingway ever did was show us how to write terse prose. Quantum theory, more than any other physical theory, seems to rub against what we have traditionally come to see as the mission of science: namely, to provide a tangible description of an objectively existing external reality. But rather than telling us what exists, quantum theory talks only about measurements and observation—and not even about what we will observe, but only about the probabilities of observing this or that result.

Many people, Einstein included, have felt that something must be missing from this picture—that a satisfactory, complete physical theory ought to be more than an instrument for computing probabilities of something so observer-focused as measurement outcomes. Much of the persistent and heated debate about the meaning of quantum theory has centered on this issue. Over the course of decades, people have responded to Einstein’s challenge in radically different ways. Personally, I’ve always found it intriguing how a theory can be so concisely formulated and inexhaustibly successful while fitting pretty much any worldview, from deep-seated realism to full-blown positivism. Perhaps this observation contains a lesson in itself.

Last year, I interviewed a bunch of physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians––many of whom are FQXi members––about the mysteries of quantum theory. I put the same set of questions to each of my interviewees, who are some of the most original thinkers working on quantum theory today. The answers, collected in my new book Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, turned out to be marvels of bold thought and irresistible wit. They are deeply personal, providing rare glimpses into what motivates a group of scholars, all working off the same theory, to seek out drastically different approaches to the theory’s interpretation.

My first question asked how my interviewees became enamored with quantum theory. (Go to the end of this article to see the full list of questions.) It’s a question close to my heart, because I wouldn’t be a physicist today hadn’t it been for a chance encounter, in my last two years of high school, with Heisenberg’s and Schrödinger’s philosophical writings about quantum theory. Many of my interviewees told similar stories of decisive events: an eye-opening seminar they attended, or a book they had been given or picked up, or a radio broadcast they had heard (sometimes still as teenagers). Many had accepted, without giving it much thought, the standard presentation of quantum theory, only to be suddenly plunged into a sense of acute discomfort by something they happened to hear or read. They have never been the same since.

The first half of my interview questions focused on the core foundational problems of quantum theory. What is the best interpretation of the theory? How are we to understand the concept of measurement? What is the meaning of probabilities? Does quantum theory imply that nature is indeterministic? The second half of the questions looked at the bigger picture. What experiments may bring decisive progress to our understanding of quantum theory? What input may come from philosophy and from the search for a unified theory? How important are personal beliefs and values? What does the future hold?

The interview answers were a stark reminder of how little consensus has been reached in the century since quantum theory’s birth. They testified to a persistent disagreement about what the central problems are, how to address them, and about how much or little we ought to worry.

Take the infamous “measurement problem” as an example. It has its roots in an apparent clash between two ways in which measurement may appear in quantum theory. First, measurement is introduced axiomatically, as a primitive notion: quantum theory gives us a recipe for computing probabilities of measurement results, but without in turn reducing the act of measurement to an explicit account of the physical going-ons inside the measurement apparatus, like we would expect in classical physics. On the other hand, nothing prevents us from using the quantum formalism to describe these going-ons in the same way we describe the going-ons in any other physical system. But in such a description, the apparatus ends up in a strangely suspended state without any definitive measurement result.

So the measurement problem amounts to several different possible concerns. Should we regard the axiomatic notion of measurement as inadequate and instead seek a deeper explanation of the measurement process? Should we worry about the indefinite apparatus state? Is there an inconsistency between this state and how measurement-as-axiom operates?

The interviews not only showed that everybody has a different opinion on how to answer these questions and whether the measurement problem is, as I put it in my interview question, a “serious roadblock or dissolvable pseudo-issue.” They also showed that these opinions were strongly correlated with interpretive attitudes toward the quantum formalism as a whole. Those, such as Christopher Fuchs, a researcher at Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, and David Mermin, a professor emeritus of physics at Cornell University, who view quantum theory a man-made tool to help us structure and predict our experiences, tended to dismiss the measurement problem. Those, such as GianCarlo Ghirardi, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of Trieste, Italy, and Tim Maudlin, a philosopher at New York University, who believe a satisfactory physical theory ought to provide an observer-independent account of physical reality, were more likely to view the measurement problem as a real difficulty for quantum theory, calling for urgent remedy.

As far as interpretations of quantum theory are concerned, pretty much every possible interpretive flavor was represented among my interviewees. And some people were self-proclaimed agnostics. Lucien Hardy, a physicist at Perimeter Institute, was particularly blunt: “I do not believe any of the currently available interpretive programs.” And some interviewees didn’t think my question made sense to begin with. “The question is completely backward,” Fuchs retorted. “It acts as if there is this thing called quantum mechanics, displayed and available for everyone to see as they walk by it—kind of like a lump of something on a sidewalk. The job of interpretation is to find the right spray to cover up any offending smells.” Jeff Bub, a philosopher at the University of Maryland, College Park, had related concerns. “The program of interpreting quantum mechanics tends to treat the theory like a problem child in the family of theories and propose therapy,” he said. “The aim is to get quantum mechanics to conform to some ideal of classical comprehensibility. If this is what it means to ‘make the best sense of quantum mechanics,’ then I think the exercise is misguided.”

Over the past two decades or so, we have witnessed what has been called the “second quantum revolution.” One development is quantum information theory. It has given us a completely new view on quantum theory as a theory phrased in terms of the processing and communication of information in physical systems. Generations of physicists raised on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle came away with the impression that quantum mechanics is about imposing all kinds of limits on what we can do in this world—like how we can’t simultaneously determine the position and momentum of a particle with full accuracy. Quantum information theory, if nothing else, has turned the tables by showing that in a world governed by quantum mechanics, we can do lots of things we can’t do in a classical world, like have completely secure communication or solve certain computational problems faster than any classical algorithm could ever do.

The question, of course, is whether quantum information theory has done anything to alleviate conceptual concerns about quantum theory. For Bub, “thinking about quantum mechanics from an information-theoretic standpoint has radically transformed the field of quantum foundations.” Those who see the task of physics as formulating theories that give an account of what exists tended to be more critical. “The notion that quantum information theory or quantum computational theory could contribute to the foundational questions has always puzzled me,” said Maudlin. “I have no concept of how one could turn the usual project on its head and derive or explain physics from information theory.” Whatever view one takes, for Tony Leggett, a Nobel Prize–winning physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, quantum information theory is having a practical, political benefit: “It is now rather widely accepted that an active interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics does not disqualify one from being a ‘proper’ physicist.”

What might be next major development in the foundations of quantum mechanics? Some interviewees thought it will be the experimental demonstration that, as Leggett put it, “quantum mechanics is not the whole truth about the physical world”—in other words, that we will find a deeper, more general theory, with quantum mechanics simply reduced to an approximation. Daniel Greenberger, at City College of the CUNY, however, isn’t so sure of the prospects. “I think looking for the order in the universe is a noble enterprise, and I like to be part of it, but I am highly skeptical of the outcome,” he said. “Finding the ‘theory of everything’ is a pretty tall order for creatures who understand almost nothing.”

So, now that I have seen all the answers—all three hundred pages of them—what are my overall observations and conclusions about the state of quantum theory? Too many things to mention come to mind, and anyway I wouldn’t want to bias your own reading. But one observation has been robust and is worth mentioning. What the interview answers suggest is that what's happening today is not so much one interpretation fighting another, but rather a sharp contrast, in mindset and approach, between two camps, each encompassing a group of interpretations. The first camp wants to exorcise the observer from the theory and embed quantum theory into a realist interpretive framework with an explicit ontology (that is, with an explicit account of what *is*). The second camp looks at the quantum formalism as a tool for representing an observer’s knowledge, an attitude that in many cases goes along with a desire to understand why we have this formalism to begin with and what particular features of nature make it so successful.

I closed the interviews by asking my interviewees what single question about the foundations of quantum mechanics they would want to put to an omniscient being. But not everyone took the bait, and some gave the question a new spin. “There are no omniscient beings,” Fuchs said. “I believe this is one of the greatest lessons of quantum theory. For there to be an omniscient being, the world would have to be written from beginning to end like a completed book. But if there is no such thing as the universe in any completed and waiting-to-be-discovered sense, then there is no completed book to be read, no omniscient being.” Greenberger didn’t quite warm up to my question either. “Would you really want to live in a universe that was so simple that you could understand it, even if God himself tried to explain it to you?”

Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, was even more curt. “Who cares about the foundations of quantum mechanics when offered an exclusive opportunity for posing a single question to an omniscient being?”

---

You can check out free samples of the book here, and order a copy here.

8. What do the experimentally observed violations of Bell's inequalities tell us about nature?

9. What contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics have, or will, come from quantum information theory? What notion of information could serve as a rigorous basis for progress in foundations?

10. How can the foundations of quantum mechanics benefit from approaches that reconstruct quantum mechanics from fundamental principles? Can reconstruction reduce the need for interpretation?

11. If you could choose one experiment, regardless of its current technical feasibility, to help answer a foundational question, which one would it be?

12. If you have a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics, what would it take to make you switch sides?

13. How do personal beliefs and values influence one's choice of interpretation?

14. What is the role of philosophy in advancing our understanding of the foundations of quantum mechanics?

15. What new input and perspectives for the foundations of quantum mechanics may come from the interplay between quantum theory and gravity/relativity, and from the search for a unified theory?

16. Where would you put your money when it comes to predicting the next major development in the foundations of quantum mechanics?

17. What single question about the foundations of quantum mechanics would you put to an omniscient being?

Mentionning an omniscient being refers to a form of conscience that is realted to to human being, omniscient might be a dimension where all probable (and for us unprobable) space/time (past and future) quanta are non causal possibillities, so every answer is "present". In our 4D causal deterministic universe we can only dream of it. But our consciousness is the only possible contact-line with that kind of dimension.

Aren't the useful results of quantum physics possibly similar to white gold earned from intensive more or less speculative work on poorly understood basics?

I do not just wonder why quantum computers do obviously not work as promised. My primary concern are some mathematical assumptions.

After already Stern and Gerlach reported an experiment that I consider at variance with traditional physics, Heisenberg/Born/Jordan as well as Schroedinger/Weyl were not aware of what I consider the necessity to reconsider the usually used transformation from unilateral real function of time into a complex function of frequency with Hermitian symmetry when they introduced instead the Hamiltonian point of view. Dirac was definitely understandably wrong when he explicitly wrote that frequency must not be negative.

Weyl admitted concerning the apparent symmetries: At the moment (since 1932) there is no explanation in sight. Schulman's textbook and Feynman's "shut up and calculate" are not appealing to me.

Unfortunately, I did not find anybody seriously dealing with these questions so far.

I have recently been inspired by Joy Christian's work to learn about David Hestene's development of 'geometric algebra'. There is a very interesting interpretation of the 'imaginary' i = sqrt (-1) in his work. If you are not familiar with this, I think you might also find his interpretation interesting.

Maintaining that a basic number like i itself cannot be interpreted, I nonetheless appreciate your attempts to help. You certainly meant the interpretation of its application in physics where I disagree with the mainstream.

While I also share your opinion that Joy Christian deserves respect for his courage, I consider my criticism addressing much more foundational questions. Maybe Karl Popper would have understood my reasoning.

Here I found my guess confirmed: Even with geometric algebra, one has to arbitrarily choose between two geometric interpretations of an imaginary number, e.g. clockwise and anticlockwise rotation, a blade with positive or negative orientation, etc. before application to ph1ysics. Quadratic forms deal with symmetric matrices, matrices that can be diagonalized. However, there is no genuine symmetry wrt the point t=0 in reality. Negative elapsed time is merely required for a trick by Heaviside. The original matrices are triangular.

This trifle does usually not disturb application. Electrical engineers do not worry when using non-causal "optimal filters". With F = E + icB, Maxwell's equations can be written very elegantly as a single one: Nabla F = mu_0 c J. Shouldn't we be happy with this linearizing? As a rule of course yes. However, as in case of acoustics, the linearized models have their limits. In application on physics, the limit is t=0. A knowing all who suggested to me the shift operation could not even shift his own age.

Isn't the basic test of any concept (but referring specifically to a "number like i) to establish its equivalent in physical reality? One is not ruling out some level of hypothecation, albeit properly linked to direct experience. But in all cases, there must be something which exists, and in the form it is purported to do so. I don't do philosophy!

Have we the same meaning of the courage? The real ask is there. The publicity is like the marketing, an under sciences. The rationalism and its sister the determinism are more than these pseudo words. The taste of money is like a chaotic parameter. The real searchers study all sceinces and the generality. The rest is vain. I can recognize a good work like I can recognize a weak work.

Imagine that I have a gun on my head from a murder. I will laugh in front of this person. That! it is a kind of courage and bravour. I have many examples like when I was in the coma and after this coma. or when you must restudy to speak. And you say the courage???.Let me laugh.

to all

I am dreaming in live due to a kind a team not skilling to ponder the gneralities even in team. Mr Rees and Tegmark? it was you Bruce and Shane on linkedin whom said that you won always with your attorneys. Kill me and have a good strategy , be sure, your only solution is to become murders. There you could steal my works. But you are murders and not scientists.It is totally different,I don't fear to die. Good luck on the line times.The respect and the courage they say ahahah and what after ? return at schoopls and learn from real generalists.

The line time dear scientists, 13.7 to 15 biilions years and you speak about the funds and royalties at short, middle and long term rentabilities for several families. Ahahaha let me laugh even if I am dead ! the crazzyness is the begining of the wisdom, still we must can to stop at times, ME NO !!!

Pobably that your hate and your vanity inceases due to my words.Probably also that you utilize a lot of politeness between you. You think in fact that your ideas are relevant just because you do not see the gnerality.So you use this strategy with your hate and your vanity.

The hate is the torch of frustrated, the arm of pseudos, the fire of uncompetents.

The love, it, is the solution, and what , you do not like that I am a person of well perhaps.Let me laugh, never I have crushed an insect me !!!and you think that people can lie about me.Let me laugh.

The parano is rational is this line of reasoning. Freud and Jung speaks about the transactional analysis.They understood the psychology !

Jeff Bub's comment was the best: "[Interpretation] tends to treat the theory like a problem child...The aim is to get quantum mechanics to conform to some ideal of classical comprehensibility." If only we analytic humans weren't hobbled by this classical experience, we might do better at the interpreting part. Asking human physicists to interpret QM is a bit like asking a lifelong slave to interpret a theory of freedom.

The roundtable approach was a great idea and I look forward to reading Max's book.

"Asking human physicists to interpret QM is a bit like asking a lifelong slave to interpret a theory of freedom."

This is a personal belief that you have. Of course you may be correct, or it could be that you are simply misled by the incorrect interpretations of QM that are available today. I think that will soon change, but then that's a personal belief that I have.

If your results don't prove that current interpretations are the problem, then it's beyond proof. Lucian Hardy seems to have the most sensible approach, "I do not believe any of the currently available interpretative programs."

I agree with Tim Maudlin that a program to "derive or explain physics from information theory" is misguided. As for the "lots of things we can't do in a classical world" can anyone tell me exactly what types of computations are possible other than fast factoring of large numbers? Anyone?

Tony Leggett's remark that "an active interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics does not disqualify one from being a 'proper' physicist," clearly shows just how faddish physics has become. Who exactly defines which ones of us are 'proper' physicists?

Your conclusion seems to be correct, that physicists are split into two camps, one based on realism, the other on formalism. The formalists have been winning for most of QM history. I predict that's about to change.

Quantum mechanics is in many ways the simplest thing there is. It is a theory of linear vectors which represent states, Hermitian operators which give eigenvalues, unitarity, commutators and so forth. This then juxtaposed with classical mechanics, which is a theory of symplectic transformations and deterministic dynamics. Of course there is classical statistical mechanics, which is an ensemble theory of classical states. What is mysterious is the existence or apparent observation of a non-quantum reality we call classical or what might be called macroscopic. The difficulty in understanding quantum mechanics comes from some desire to understand it according to macroscopic or classical mechanics. I think the real question is; how is it that macroscopic physics emerges from quantum physics?

any chance you might reconsider the explanatory framework diagram that I showed you before? You previously said science didn't want it. However as well as answering/overcoming a number of paradoxes and answering numerous foundational questions it gives the way that observed causality in space-time originates in the foundational reality.

The Object reality shown is the youngest iteration of the Object universe undergoing continual change. It is unitemporal so everything in it exists at the same and only time and is able to change due to the relationships between the different objects which give forces leading to changes of spatial position giving a new arrangements /iterations. These are all of the things that are entangled because they exist together rather than just appearing together because data has arrived at the observer together giving a fabricated composite image.

The foundational events are continually providing data to the Data pool which can later be received by an observer to give a space-time observation. Rather than there being a space-time continuum Universe spread over time from beginning to end existing always as the entirety of the Universe.

What is observed will depend upon when and how the observer chooses to look as that will determine the data received and iteration from which the data detected originated.The data relates to a particular actualisation of the object.

What is observed can only be from the data added to the data pool. Events that have not occurred in foundational reality have not provided any data and so will not be observed,(excluding hallucination etc.) So the data pool contains all possibilities from what has occurred but not all possibilities. But the observer can not know what has and has not occurred and has a viewpoint limited to a statistical evaluation, until observation (data selection).

Data can be combined in different ways according to observer reference frame.Causality in space-time may appear linked to the order in which the data is received and processed not the order of production in foundational reality.

It might be as well said that the universe has a curious dichotomy between quantum and classical (or macroscopic) structure. D-branes turn out to be condensates of strings which at large are classical. It is then maybe best to not pick on quantum physics as strange, but to acknowledge that our universe has this strange property of some type of dualism with reality.

Is the duality at all strange when seen in the context of the explanatory framework I've set out? (illustration given in linked diagram on my previous post)I think that framework eliminates the strangeness, as well as answering questions and overcoming paradoxes.

The strangeness seems to have been due to trying to explain everything within a partial model of reality. Either misinterpreted space-time alone or the quantum realm alone, that by itself contradicts space-time.

I like it, but I'm not a physicist. Most professional physicists are engrossed in nuances of accepted theory, not revisiting the entire structure.

Think of this in terms of politics. You can push the small waves, but you can only ride the big waves. I'm not so much trying to create waves, as figure out when the big one that is coming will arrive. Personally I doubt you or I or anyone not deeply imbedded in the physics community will get any credit for enunciating it. If the world worked otherwise, there would exist far more diversity within accepted physics already, because there would be less herd behavior. In many ways it is a very primordial dynamic, but also an ageless and eternal dynamic.

I only really get engrossed in this conversation because this is a small community in a relatively small field, so one isn't completely drowned out. I'm not trying to discourage you, but ultimately we have to value our own knowledge, not look to others for validation. To the individual, knowledge is self, but to others, it's only information. The point I make about religion and spirituality is the spiritual absolute is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. The way society is taught though, we are all looking to emulate some ideal, not just raise up ourselves and those connected to us. As your model makes clear, if you want to plug into the universal, it is all round us already, not just in some award someone might get and many will have fought for.

Life is just a soap bubble that holds a little bit of this eternal nature for a moment.

There cannot be any form of ‘strange duality/whatever’, because the very existence of reality is a function of sensory detection systems. It can only be that which is potentially detectable. And they, and hence reality, have a definitive logical form which we can discern. There is a logical possibility of this ‘strangeness’ being so from another perspective, as there is with anything, but we can never know that, so it is outside the purview of science.

Therefore, the problem, for us, lies somewhere in the way we are understanding reality, and/or applying models to represent it, and/or the process used to deploy them.

I do not want to get into another epic discussion but what is the problem? Is there any strangeness or paradox or contradiction in the explanatory framework I have set out?

There is duality it seems to me because observed space-time is an output from data processing and QM is statistics for possible outcomes that are not yet observed but relate to particles that exist or have existed in unobserved foundational reality. These are not contradictory realities unless one regards space-time as the externally existing reality rather than a fabricated output from data receipt and processing, and tries to imagine the foundational reality and space-time superimposed.

Lawrence said "It is then maybe best to not pick on quantum physics as strange, but to acknowledge that our universe has this strange property of some type of dualism with reality." I think that is very well said my only quibble is that he said "strange property". It is not strange when the explanatory framework (as in the diagram )is applied, but makes complete sense.

“…but what is the problem? Is there any strangeness or paradox or contradiction in the explanatory framework I have set out?”

In respect of the second part, in so far as your explanatory framework looks fundamentally the same as that which resulted in an “epic discussion”, I would say what I said then still applies.

The “problem” (or point I was making) revolves around how existence is constituted. Ask yourself: what is existence? Not what it manifests as in any particular circumstance. The answer is: that which is detectable, or deemed to be potentially detectable. Reality only exists because senses have evolved which defines it to be so. These senses, and the information they utilise, are all existent, ie part of reality. It is cyclical, a closed system of sensory detection. All of which is, in terms of logical functionality, definable. That is, any form of ‘strangeness’ is not an attribute of reality, and must be a function of some flaw in our understanding. Or at least, one could say that that would certainly be the most likely explanation and therefore the option to investigate first.

“There is duality it seems to me because observed space-time is an output from data processing and QM is statistics for possible outcomes that are not yet observed but relate to particles that exist or have existed in unobserved foundational reality.”

I have already commented on time in another posting. In respect of the second part of that sentence, yes, they are predictions. So what? A prediction is a prediction is a prediction. It is not reality. That occurred, irrespective of the prediction. And if we can actually observe reality in these particular occasions anyway, then we know it, and can compare it to the prediction.

The diagram deals with more than existence. The unitemporal object reality including the data pool contains what is actualised and has existence. Objects and potential data.

The image reality output contains what has been fabricated from the received data. That output is reality, it has some kind of existence whether it is the image on the photograph or electrical activity in the brain that is experienced.

However the content itself is not reality -in the same way- as the actualised objects were. They can be seen a different size or length or shape according to how the data is intercepted and processed.

The diagram also shows the former iterations of the Object universe which no longer exist but are still worth considering because it is across that sequence of universal arrangements that the wave function of QM must be spread. Wave function collapse must occur when an iteration is selected, as it is the one in which the detection is made, and that is what is then made into an observable image reality.

It also includes records, and memories. The content of those records does not still exist, exactly as recorded, outside of them and may no longer exist at all but the data in the records has existence.

You said "That is, any form of ‘strangeness’ is not an attribute of reality, and must be a function of some flaw in our understanding." Yes I think that misunderstanding has made reality appear strange but the explanatory framework illustrated by that diagram eliminates the strangeness in my opinion.

“The diagram deals with more than existence”. I did not imply otherwise. Indeed, I have made a concerted effort not to comment on your latest version, as such, ie only of necessity, when parts of it are articulated in other circumstances.

In respect of your last para, I would say your framework does not explain/eliminate the problem. But we have had that discussion.

An alternative way of expressing the point I was making, is that there is no logical difference in the existence of an elementary particle or an elephant (because of the way existence occurs). The ‘only’ (ie it is a practical, not a metaphysical, issue) problem with the former is that it is extremely, if not impossible, to directly experience, and, in trying to do so, one changes what then would have otherwise occurred. Of course, one can scare an elephant in trying to measure it, but the event is somewhat obvious!

In both cases, there was a definitive physical reality. The issue is sensing it. By definition, the change occurred to what would have otherwise happened, NOT what did happen. There must have been an occurrence, which existed independently of us, and previously, for us to then change subsequent events. This gives the clue to where the problem is.

thank you for the article about your book. It does sound interesting and a creative approach, to ask many different scientists at the cutting edge of this area of research their views on that list of questions. Do you have your own favoured opinions on them? Were you persuaded by anyone's answers? Or are you undecided -or keeping diplomatically quiet on the subject?

I have just been watching the videos of Richard Feynman's lectures at Auckland university. From back in the 1970s. He went to great length to explain the strangeness of quantum electrodynamics and how despite the accuracy and precision of the calculations -WHY- it is possible to calculate nature in that way was (back then) unclear to everyone. It is interesting to me that after all of the time that has elapsed since those lectures there is still no clear consensus as to what it all really means. Not that the theory of how to calculate and the mathematics is not really well understood but the why like that is still rather mysterious.

I've read my share of pop science books, magazine articles and seen occasional things on TV, and here etc, including Feynman's diagrams but it hasn't really stuck me as something easily related to our macroscopic reality.I have mentally sidelined it as "something else" rather than something very important. However having heard Richard Feynman describe it himself in a very clear, considerate, simple but not patronising way makes a big difference. Now I think I may have a better grasp of what is going on. It would be interesting to hear what other people are thinking about the subject -though I'm not sure how much I would grasp, or would grasp me.

Lawrence Crowell said " I think the real question is; how is it that macroscopic physics emerges from quantum physics?" This attempt at an answer might sound incredibly naive but its a start.

I think it has to do with how a manifestation is produced. A manifestation being what is observed rather than an independently existing actualised object. Re. the likelihood of detecting a manifestation here or there or somewhere else:The greatest number of photons, produced from the cascade coming from an interaction with an actualised object, will be those where the path has had the lowest energy. Not necessarily the shortest path but the one that provides the least resistance to the flow of the cascade.(Like the flow of water, and Lagrangians of classical mechanics and not more mysterious.) Some more energetic paths may be taken but they are less likely and make a smaller contribution to the total number of of photons arriving at the observer.

Lowest energy paths, greater number of photons, greater probability of finding them and more photons will give a greater intensity. (In the case of a black object it could be a lower number of photons than the surroundings.) This photon data can then be formed into a manifestation. A photographic plate will be exposed by the photons arriving. The majority of those arriving together, from the cascade originating at actualised object, will be in a certain region outnumbering the few that are scattered outside of that region.Averaging over the many different photon paths (from object source to observer) will give light that appears to travel in a straight line ( through a uniform medium without the affect of a field on it that could deflect its path.)

The amount of photons arriving will determine the amount of exposure giving boundaries that will allow the object's manifestation, to be discerned from the background.If the observer is an organism with eyes the photons will again arrive according to the expected distribution, the majority of the pathways being the lowest energy routes. Those that fall way outside the easy route group will be so few that they may not be registered. Those arriving in small number may be filtered out and not contribute to the data transmitted for processing or may be filtered out later on. The sensory system is very attuned to recognition of lines, and boundaries allowing separate objects to be identified.I would like to give a reference for that fact but I don't have anything at hand and a quick search didn't give me what I was looking for.I'll find something another time.

I think the important distinction, which I have made previously, is between the manifestation output observed, produced from input of EM data, and an actualised object. They are not the same but as Richard Feynman, by means of his steak and philosophers analogy, indicated it is blatantly obvious that the one -implies- the existence of the other.

I think the important distinction, which I have made previously, is between the manifestation output observed, produced from input of EM data, and an actualised object. They are not the same but as Richard Feynman, by means of his steak and philosophers analogy, indicated it is blatantly obvious that the one -implies- the existence of the other.

All of the "objects" observed, experinced, and described by classical mechanics and Einsteinian relativity are manifestations and not the actualisations (fermions or objects with atomic structure) which have existence independent of observation. Macroscopic actualisations are made from atoms, rather than patterns on a photographic film, or electrical activity in a brain, or output of some other kind of detection system. Macroscopic actualisations follow the same quantum rules of physics but averaged out over the very large number of particles and with the addition of interactions of matter at greater scales including gravitational and inertial forces due to greater mass.

Chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology and materials science etc., etc. are working with actualisations, the actual atomic structure stuff. The observational sciences astronomy, cosmology, anywhere relativity is applicable because there is distance between observer and observed, manifestations are being worked with. And manifestaions are prone to variation rather than being fixed copies of the actualisation. As their production relies upon the photon transmission. Anything affecting that can affect what is recieved when and so what is seen. Also the form and position of the manifestaion depends upon when and how the observation is made.

This has made me rethink where the probability distribution ( Or Wave function) exists. If there are vast numbers of photons produced then all of the possible paths might be actualised, except the most extremely unlikely scenarios. And going back in time which can not be done- but a change in spatial position -as if- going back in time would be allowable, and possible if this is thought of as occurring in space-time, where it is not.) The paths will be spread over many iterations of the unitemporal object universe.

The more photons reflected or emitted from the actualised object the more likely is correlation with the theoretical probability distribution. Or if a very low number of photons are produced then it would take a very long time at that rate for all paths to be actualised. So under those circumstances in a short time the actual distribution in nature will not be the complete theoretical probability distribution but some points within it.The variation from expectation may be surprising but as with any very small sample size it will not be statistically significant. So whether it is just an abstract model indicating the likelihood of finding photons, so representing the possibilities within the unknown, or a representation of what is actually out there depends upon the circumstances under consideration. It seems to me.

I previously said -If there are vast numbers of photons produced then all of the possible paths might be actualised, except the most extremely unlikely scenarios.I should have said that given enough photons even those will be realised.If it can happen then it will especially given very many repetitions. But the probability of that path is far smaller. The probability can become so small that it is...

I previously said -If there are vast numbers of photons produced then all of the possible paths might be actualised, except the most extremely unlikely scenarios.I should have said that given enough photons even those will be realised.If it can happen then it will especially given very many repetitions. But the probability of that path is far smaller. The probability can become so small that it is insignificant under normal circumstances. Very unlikely things can occasionally happen they are just overwhelmed by the far more likely scenarios when there is a lot going on.

Re. Schroedinger's cat: it seems that if the experiment is conducted once, under those circumstances the actual condition of the potentially deadly particle and cat, will not be the complete theoretical probability distribution existing actualised in nature but a point within it. It is actualised but unknown. Until the box is open and the manifestation of the cat is produced, allowing the state of the actualised particle to be known. Of course it depends upon -when- the box is opened too because the particle could decay at any time. Any delay and the still live cat could become a dead cat. (But not vice versa.)

If the experiment was conducted lots of times then there would be lots of chances of the particle being in each state. If there is equal probability of decay or not after a certain time interval, then half the cats would be alive and half dead, given sufficient repetitions. The more repetitions the closer the outcome should become to that predicted statistically.

The state of the cat does not come into existence at observation but only knowledge of its state. It like the particle is actualised within the box prior to its manifestation being observed. The cat in the box is atomic structure affected by the state of the actualised particle not a manifestation formed by observation. Actualisations must always precede their manifestations as photons must be reflected or emitted from the surface of the actualisation and the process of light transmission must cascade from the actualised object to the observer enabling the manifestation to be formed from the EM data input.The formation of the manifestation is not formation of the cat object into a certain state, only formation of indirectly obtained knowledge of its condition.

At formation of the manifestation, the wave function becomes irrelevant.It represented the likelihood of different possible conditions of the actualisation which was unknown but it is now known with certainty due to observation of the manifestation. There has been a change from considering what -might- exist independently of observation to what is observed. That is a change from Object or Source reality to Image or Output reality. Using one cat the wave function is is a description of the different likelihoods of what -might- exist, only an expression of the unknown- without equivalent actualisation in nature. However with very many cats in boxes it is what does exist in nature because the full range of statistically possible outcomes have been realised.

I am not convinced that the apparent differentiation that Lawrence alluded to has anything to do with the fact that we experience a representation (“manifestation”-in the case of sight via photons) of reality (“actualisation”). If there is some difference in the nature of what we receive, then that indicates an actual difference in reality anyway.

Now, some behaviour(s) in elementary particles may be inhibited when they are involved in a more complex interaction. However, I remember Tom once replying to me that one is observer dependent, the other independent, and this seems to hint at the ‘difference’, ie it is false. In that all reality is independent of sensing, and indeed, it is not actually reality which is sensed anyway, but a physically existent representation of it (in observation, some form of effect in photons, for example). As you say, effectively, S’s cat either died, or it did not. Observation at a later point in time is irrelevant.

Put in simple language, there is a fundamental flaw in the underpinning philosophy of how reality occurs.

Let me just post that quote again to remind me of what we are talking about Lawrence Crowell said " I think the real question is; how is it that macroscopic physics emerges from quantum physics?"

I'd like to address this reply to everyone, or anyone who is interested.

Its fascinating that the way to describe nature at the quantum scale, to get really accurate calculations that are validated by experiment seems to be using complex numbers and ways of thinking about what is going on that do not relate straightforwardly to the space(-time) that we observe. Although it makes sense that at the smallest scale there should be more reality that is just like the larger scale reality that is seen, it doesn't seem to be like that. The two do not fit easily together.The thing that unites the two are the photons and what they are up to. The way in which they spread through space over time and their probabilities, which can be described with the complex numbers and certain kinds of algebra.

The way I am thinking about this is that the observed reality and the potential inputs, in the environment, are on different sides of a reality interface. Source reality and potential inputs on one side, exhibiting quantum behaviour that can be described by quantum physics and complex numbers. On the other side the space-time output that is not the external reality at all but the output from data processing or the way in which photons interact with a material changing it to give a manifestation or image reality. That can be described using ordinary integers for measurement and the calculus used for space-time mathematics.

The output reality is observer dependent. It does not exist without an observer to fabricate it. It also contains temporal spread that does not exist in the external reality. As the photons arriving at the observer have taken different lengths of time to arrive. Which makes the manifestation different from the external reality by virtue of that alone. Not just the delay but the spread across time of the data received and amalgamated together. It has qualitative attributes generated by the observer, whether photographic paper, or human mind or computer screen. Different papers from different manufacturers, or produced for different photography conditions, will produce different colour outputs for quantitatively identical inputs. Individual differences in retinas might in a similar way produce different outputs. Also anything affecting photon transmission such as air temperature variation can affect the output image, making it seem wobbly in that particular scenario. Relativity applies.Also the images seen are known rather than just having a probability of being in a certain state.

I make that 7 differences:1. Temporal spread, 2.delay, 3.observer dependent, 4.emergent and so prone to variation due to interference and diffraction,5. relative(varying according to reference frame of observer),6. known not a probability, 7.Has qualitative attributes (related to but not isomorphic with quantitative properties of input data, added by individual observer). So this is -not- the same thing at all as the observer independent external reality, that exist. What does exist at all scales is not the observed reality but a complex realm that is the data pool of the external environment and also objects and material which since it is also made of quantum particles might be assumed to have similar attributes better described by complex mathematics.

So in a simple, preliminary way I was trying to give an explanation for how the probability wave relates to what actually exists out in nature and how it is related to the photon information that an observer will receive which will cross the reality interface and generate the output.Which I think addresses Lawrence's question even if it is not yet a complete explanation.

(I have also just found out that probability distribution has a different meaning in physics to the one I meant when I used it in my previous posts. I was trying to refer to the variations in probability, the wave function.)

Not really significant in the context of answering Lawrence's question but for completeness- There is an eighth difference 8. Artifacts and gap filling produced by observer.This can be due to the structure and function of the observer.- such as lens flare, giving an output photographic image that has not wholly originated in the input from external reality. It is related to the lens and blades of the iris ie the structure of the camera. The "orbs" produced by digital cameras are also artefacts produced by the function of the camera, not a ghostly part of the external reality.

The human brain fills gaps in visual data to give a complete field of view rather than patchy. It can therefore omit objects or fill gaps with an assumption of what is there. The blind spot demonstration shows this effect very well, but it is not only at the blind spot that this occurs. There is also filtering of the information, so not everything detected is observed by the conscious mind.

Re no 7. (7.Has qualitative attributes (related to but not isomorphic with quantitative properties of input data, added by individual observer).I don't think isomorphic is really the right word. I didn't want to say it is not identical because obviously the qualitative and quantitative are not the same but I wanted to say they differ in another way. Although there is a relationship between a quantitative input of photons of a particular frequency and corresponding output it is not a direct relationship. The observer interferes. For mammalian and avian observer's colours are produced as balances between neighbouring colours rather than measurements of each colour independently.Which can be demonstrated via various optical illusions where same colours appear to be different under different circumstances.

I have got a bit away from the question but I wanted to emphasise the differences between observed reality and independently existing reality. It seems clear that when observations of distant objects are made it is the fabricated reality produced from the photon data that is being considered not the independent reality. Which makes astronomical observations- the observation of the fabrication of reality at the largest scale. Not the independent external reality at the largest scale. It is made from the data received and it does not exist independently. Data does but not that image universe. But there must be an external reality at the largest scale (thinking again of Feynman's steak). Which makes it something else that we are not seeing. The fully simultaneously existing Object universe.

It takes 1s for light to reflect from the moon to Earth, so I'm seeing the moon as it was a second ago. I will see it in the next second also. So the moon object must be existing simultaneously with the Earth to be the source of the data -not yet- received. There must be a Source/ Object universe that is the origin of the photon data that will be received millions of years in the future. Producing that not yet see-able data now.

The artists impressions produced from the B/W light pictures made from received astronomical data are beautiful and awe inspiring.The collection of the data is an awesome feat. Re distant galaxies: I can not know that the photon data amalgamated into a light picture image has been amalgamated to have the same configuration that previously existed as an independent reality producing those photons. Without knowing for certain the paths the photon cascades have taken ie where they have come from (not just where they seem to have come from after receipt and interpretation) I can not know that structures seen actually ever belonged together in that configuration. I know that astronomers can take into account known deviations of light paths but that will produce a different fabrication which is still not necessarily a copy of a reality that ever had independent existence.

Anyway that sort of explains why the so called macroscopic reality described by classical physics and Einstein's relativity is different to the physics found most useful at the quantum scale. They are not just different scales of the same thing but different facets of reality. The independent Object reality provides the data input for fabrication of the Image reality, but there is no input from Image reality back into the Source or Object reality.Its a one way relationship that I think physicists would call an asymmetry.

Lawrence Crowell said "I think the real question is; how is it that macroscopic physics emerges from quantum physics?"

T.H. Ray said Bingo. Of course, the converse is "How is it that quantum physics is subsumed by continuous measurement functions?"

It is the swap from consideration of one facet of reality to the other. The image reality, which was observed by Newton and from which he derived the laws of motion, and classical mechanics developed, has the assumption of continuous time built in. Einstein's observations which lead to his model (of the image reality) is a space-time continuum combining space with continuous time. So when going from considering the quantum physics model to what an observer sees the assumptions of the macroscopic models of reality must come too.

It isn't a transition across scales but a transition across the reality interface. From what exists independently to what is observed from the data received. That's a bit like the difference between the data on a computer disk and what the avatar is doing in the virtual environment. There is a relationship but they are not the same thing. They are parts of the same system but with an asymmetric relationship. One provides the inputs and the other is the output.

And, apparently, we can ‘observe’ (albeit indirectly) this ‘quantum behaviour’, can’t we? Otherwise, where is the proof that it occurs, as described, emanating from?

“The output reality is observer dependent”. I have looked at your diagram again, but let me put it this way round. The only thing that is ‘observer dependent’ is the articulated individual perceptions (and abstractions based thereon) which result from processing received information. That, ie physically existent representations of reality which the senses detect, is independent of observer, as too is the reality. Whether an observer intercepts a particular ‘assembly’ of photons, or not, is, obviously, irrelevant in terms of whether they are existent or not. Indeed, all interception does, whether by sentient organism, rock, tree, cathedral, etc, etc is cause the cessation of that particular ‘assembly’. There is a ‘quasi’ dependency in the sense that observer circumstances differ, eg distance, conditions of travel, etc, as you say. But these effects are known and can be accounted for in discerning what constituted the reality which instigated the received information. Your ‘differences’ are mixing observer related and observer independent factors.

When it comes to ‘time’, I think I’ve said it enough times, this is misconceived. Time is concerned with rate of change, ie more than one. We should be explaining how one state occurs, and how and why it becomes another (at a speed).

Unite might have not have been the best word. They, the photons, are the "bridge" between the material external reality and the internally experienced, or an artificially fabricated reality. As they can act to transmit data from the Source object to the observer. From steak to mind(brain activity). Animal life has evolved to utilise photons in the environment in such a way that a representation of the external reality can be constructed for the purpose of avoiding predation, finding food and navigation which enhances survival to maturation and reproductive success. We have now also developed technology that enables us to utilise light sensitive materials and devices for our own purposes. Which are artificial reality interfaces.

Re quantum observations: Its a different kind of observation. Not seeing but detecting the highly amplified signal emitted from a device, which is initiated by a single particle interaction with the detector apparatus- or seeing ionization trails that indicate that a single particle has caused ionization which then releases further particles causing further ionization until the effect is sufficiently large to be visible. The individual sub atomic particles are never seen.Its still called observation.

I'm glad you looked at the diagram again. Yes the Image reality, whether produced by a human being or a light sensitive material is observer dependent. It does not matter if the observer is a human organism or a sheet of silver nitrate impregnated paper. An observer in physics does not have to be a living thing. An output will be produced with differences to the external reality that -ever- existed. I have listed some of the ways it can differ. Some of those differences can be taken into account but even doing that does not make the modified image a perfect copy of the Source reality, the material objects from which the photons were reflected or emitted.

I am not disputing that the photons exist. They are on the digram as the data pool. Because the diagram is drawn as sets the data pool is a sub set of the object reality, so its inside it, but it is a part of the environment just as the material objects are a part of the environment. They are not little pictures in the air, they are not representations waiting to be seen.( I'm not being patronising, please don't think that I am, I just want to make my opinion clear.) They are -just particles- if you take the QM view or EM waves if you are taking a more classical viewpoint. They have a frequency or energy, they come in different amounts or intensities, they have different polarizations. That's it and the observer, organism , device or material creates an image/reality from that.

Yes it is irrelevant to the photons whether they are intercepted by an observer/reality interface, rather than any other object or atom in the environment. But to a sentient observer it is highly relevant because the observer's experienced reality is formed from the photons that -are- received and those that are not form not part of their experience. Their personal viewpoint of what exists externally is the fabrication made from the photon data received. Yes the differences are all just differences. I wanted to fully differentiate the output from the Source and potential inputs. To show that they can not be considered the same thing.

I think with Newton's first law "Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force."( HyperPhysics),and conservation of energy, which are pillars of foundational physics,then : The universe in motion will continue in motion unless it encounters an entire Object universe stopping force. It might be thought of many interacting systems within scales and across scales, rather than a single isolated system. So that though high levels of energy can be dissipated it can also build up again from small fluctuations or input from neighbouring systems.

The minimisation of potential energy wherever possible is continual even for an object that appears stationary, because it will still have a universal trajectory that is not apparent to the observer. So it gives change even if nothing else happens. Even an apparently stationary object shifts position. Because the Earth has shifted position in the object universe. Kinetic energy will determine the amount of spatial change or rate over and above the passive change in position if there was no KE.

If I had to choose either KE or PE as the progenitor of time it would be the potential energy.It is the continual minimisation of PE imo. That is because PE will always be minimised where possible -so there is something constant about it. And because of the Object universal trajectory of every object, it applies to the object whether it is in apparent motion or not.And passage of time applies to every object whether in apparent motion or not. Its -rate of change- in position not having any affect upon its position in time. It always remains at the same uni-temporal Now with everything else.

Why not just use my word-representation? In respect of the sense of sight, it is an effect in photons, caused by an interaction between those photons and the existent reality, which acquires the role of a representation of reality for sentient organisms. This representation has a physical existence, and is independent of the observer. In respect of other senses, something else occurs, but it is the same logical process.

Now, if we understand how photons, and this effect, works, then that may, or may not, indicate some fundamental difference between the ‘macro/micro’. It has nothing to do with the processing of this received information. Whether the reality is directly or indirectly sensed, is also irrelevant, assuming that due process has been adhered to. Because, the basis of proof remains the same, ie it is sensorily experienceable and not the artefact of an hypothesis, nor the result of some ‘interference’ in the detection process.

Re your diagram. In your post you said the output reality was observer dependent. Because of the word ‘manifestation’, and its location in the diagram, I took this to be the equivalent of ‘phsically existent representations of reality’. But then noticed the alternative adjective of ‘image’. So I then just made the point as to what is, and what is not, observer dependent. Your point about organism is not correct. Some organism must sense something for it to become an input, even if that is an effect on photographic paper. Having sensed it, we know what it means because we understand the process. Just the same as we can ‘compensate’ for light that has travelled through liquid. The effect in photons (and other effects), are, of themselves, reality. It is just that organisms have developed sensory detection systems which utilise them in order to be aware of reality. So for them, these effects are representations of reality, ie that which existed and interacted with whatever to cause the effect.

I have already discussed with you my reasons for disliking the term representation for the unreceived photon data. It has to do with the meaning of the word representation, as I understand it from the dictionary definitions that I have available. Definitions that I have posted for you before.I understand that you disagree with me and that is OK. I am not going to use your term. However I will understand what you mean when you use it consistently ie synonymous with your "physically existent representations of reality". That is out in the external reality not in the mind. Please correct me if that is a misunderstanding of your opinion.

Imo.They only have the -potential- to become an image when they interact with a reality interface that can convert the raw photon data into an output. In that potential state within the data pool they are just a sea of photons (or electromagnetic waves ). For analogy; Consider the human chromosomes isolated as DNA. I would not call that DNA a representation of a human being. The word is not appropriate. It is just a collection of chemical strands and nothing like a human being. Though It has the potential to give the information necessary for a human being to be constructed.

Paul, just to be sure it is clear to you ,the manifestation is what is produced by the observer. Not the data or anything else out in the environment. It, the manifestation, isn't an external reality. In the case of a higher organism it is in the brain activity or mind. It is now possible to put people into MRI scanners and have them watch a video while recording their brain activity. The images watched can be matched to brain activity that is observed. It is also possible to predict, from watching known types of brain activity produced, the image on the video that is being watched. There was a recent story about it in New scientist magazine. In the case of the photographic paper the manifestation is not outside of the paper but a part of the chemically treated paper.

you said "Your point about organism is not correct. Some organism must sense something for it to become an input, even if that is an effect on photographic paper." I am not incorrect you have just not understood what I was saying. The diagram is not just about human and animal senses and observations, but a physical process that also applies to inanimate devices and materials too. The photographic paper is a reality interface itself. Photon data is the input (to the paper surface) and the chemical change that occurs in response to the photons causes a pattern of areas of different shade on the paper. Whether it is seen by a person or not. In the case of the paper it is also a 2d output reality and not 3D.

Glad to see that you're still engaged here. I've been away for a while, working on a new essay. Unfortunately, not totally germane to the topic being discussed here, per se, but if you ever have the time and inclination for more reading you'll find my latest here. Comments welcome, of course.

thank you for sharing that. I found it easy to read and understand and of course a topic that I find very interesting. Which is why I have finished reading it so quickly. It seemed to be well laid out, written in plain easily understood English, introducing the problem and then talking about how it can be resolved in your opinion. With references to how time is thought...

thank you for sharing that. I found it easy to read and understand and of course a topic that I find very interesting. Which is why I have finished reading it so quickly. It seemed to be well laid out, written in plain easily understood English, introducing the problem and then talking about how it can be resolved in your opinion. With references to how time is thought about by other's, which are listed at the end. I thought it very clearly expressed, it flows well and has a nice, feel good, conclusion.

As to content, the idea of the changing configuration of the universe is very important. It is an idea that I use often. More recently talking of a sequence of iterations of the Object universe, which is essentially a sequence of configurations, as you say, or patterns. It seems to be just the same idea that you have presented before in your FQXi essay but in a new work highlighting its place amongst other ideas of time and emphasising its importance.I agree it is a really important idea and it is good that you have presented it so well.

The weakest argument that you presented, I think, is that there is no evidence of the future because it hasn't existed. I have written on FQXi blogs quite a bit about the pre-written and unwritten future. The pre- written future being that em data that exists within the environment, not yet received by an observer, but which will produce the, observer fabricated, experienced present when it is received. This allows different observers to receive data from same Source events at different times (within different material configurations of the universe) giving the non simultaneity of relativity. Which is a slightly complicated concept to get one's head around but once it has been done it seems obvious. You have avoided the necessity of dealing with that phenomenon when you "bail out" of talking about simultaneity near the end of the essay.

I think its a valuable addition to everything that has been written about time and that you've done a good job. Though I don't know how to write a good essay or scientific paper.I have recently bought "The craft of scientific writing" by Michael Alley.I've got a lot to learn and it seems to be full of good advice.Dipping into it I was, for example, surprised to find that "words such as facilitate and implement are pretentious"( Michael Alley). But to me they are words that are commonly used in the teaching profession. It is easy to continue using familiar language without considering that it might be judged to lack the expected etiquette of plain speaking. Perhaps, when I have finished reading it, I will have learned how to write something as succinct and readable as your new essay.

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my essay. I'm glad you found it good reading. I knew from earlier discussions we've had that many of our ideas about time coincide, so I thought you might like this.

I take your point about the pre-written and unwritten future. All sensory data that we receive originated in earlier configurations of the universe. ...

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my essay. I'm glad you found it good reading. I knew from earlier discussions we've had that many of our ideas about time coincide, so I thought you might like this.

I take your point about the pre-written and unwritten future. All sensory data that we receive originated in earlier configurations of the universe. How much earlier is a function of how far away the source is located. When we receive the sensory data and incorporate it into our knowledge about the universe it is necessarily a sort of a "delayed reaction" phenomenon. In essence, we're always "lagging behind" the information power curve.

You're absolutely correct about my "bail out" (a charitable term for what some might call a "cop out.") In truth, though, I did feel that this essay already was becoming far too long. Doing justice to the concept of simultaneity would have required making it considerably longer. Many people these days have relatively short attention spans. I'm thinking that perhaps a totally new essay devoted primarily to that one topic would be more useful.

One of my primary goals in this essay was to make perfectly explicit the fundamental incompatibility of this proposed paradigm with conclusions generally acknowledged to flow from the operational definition of time. I definitely do not think that the operational definition is "wrong," per se, (it is, after all, a definition!) but I do believe that it is incomplete. It is not a full description of reality. I think it would be a major step forward if some clever person could find out a way to merge the operational definition of time with my proposed paradigm for the nature of time, which, I'm convinced, is a better, fuller explanation for reality; in other words, for what is really happening out there.

On a related note, I recently read David Deutsch's wonderful book, 'The Beginning of Infinity,' which, btw, I'd highly recommend. Deutsch clearly is driven by a quest for what he terms "good explanations." In talking about Newton, Deutsch writes, that Newton's theory ". . . had been able to make more accurate predictions than its predecessors precisely because it was more right than they were about what was really happening." (p. 113) Yes, exactly. And I believe that my proposed paradigm for the nature of time is more right than the operational definition about what is really happening. For example, the operational definition has led many to conclude that time travel is theoretically possible. My proposed paradigm absolutely rules it out. Clearly both can't be correct. The disconnect, in my opinion, is caused in large part by people being insufficiently careful in defining exactly what they mean by "time travel." This imprecise use of terminology is the source of many of our current woes, in my opinion.

Quoting Deutsch again, ". . . all progress, both theoretical and practical, has resulted from a single human activity; the quest for what I call good explanations." ('The Beginning of Infinity,' p. vii) And that, I hope, is also what we're all about here at FQXi.

For whatever it is worth, Georgina, I've found your writing here at FQXi to be very clear, readable, and understandable. Even so, I commend you for striving to make it even better. There is always room for improvement in even the best of our efforts. And thank you again for your comments.

Thank you for your kind comment about my writing. It is good to know that you think it clear. I am prone to using overly long and complicated sentences.I sometimes try to be so precise that the language or grammar becomes unnatural and difficult or seemingly pretentious. I tend to put more thought into the content than how it will come across to a reader, and consideration...

Thank you for your kind comment about my writing. It is good to know that you think it clear. I am prone to using overly long and complicated sentences.I sometimes try to be so precise that the language or grammar becomes unnatural and difficult or seemingly pretentious. I tend to put more thought into the content than how it will come across to a reader, and consideration of the ease/difficulty of reading it. My FQXi essay is difficult to read, even for me, but a great improvement upon earlier drafts. I have more recently written an essay but rather than considering who it was addressed to I just wrote what I felt like writing at the time. Which with hindsight isn't the best approach.

You seem to have got it right. The essay is a good length. Perhaps if you hadn't mentioned simultaneity its omission would not have been obvious.Or you might have just said - simultaneity is a complex issue, it will be addressed separately. Its not a severe criticism. It is not possible to discuss everything in one short essay and you were correct to make the decision about what you would and would not talk about.I think I have the problem of wanting to explain everything at once even if I can not do it well enough, when it might be better to deal thoroughly with one thing at a time.

A particular time, which you do discuss, and simultaneity do belong together though. The way I address this is to consider the material universe (object universe) as a separate facet of reality to the observer's experience of it, the image reality. Using your terminology the "particular times /configurations" exist unobserved in sequence. Only the youngest still existing. Data generated by emission or reflection from the material structure is retained in the environment and can be observed during subsequent configurations, creating the experienced/observed present. Which appears to be a particular time but which is actually an amalgamation of data generated during different configurations of the Object universe. As it takes the light different lengths of time to reach the observer from different objects. So it is a new fabrication and not a reproduction of a former single configuration that ever existed.

The observer's reality can be regarded as spread over space-time. However it is the data that was spread over space. The photon data in the environment all exists simultaneously, but with the potential to supply data produced during different arrangements of the Object universe (different times).The reality of the material Object universe only has one time for all space in each iteration (your particular times). I call that uni-temporal Now but it is the temporal equivalent of the single pattern (your configuration) in space. As I have explained to Paul, there is an argument that things can not exist in space if they do not exist in time. The temporal term fulfils that psychological requirement but does not seem to add anything extra to the model of the universe. It is the Object universe's now (a time) whereas the Iteration (configuration) is like the Object universe's Present (what is here, now).

I do not know if you are familiar with that description, as I do not know how many, or which of my posts you have read. It allows Einsteinian relativity and non simultaneity and also allows the temporal paradoxes to be overcome. It is compatible with the description of time that you have given and disallows time travel, also agreeing with your perspective on time.

To refresh my memory, I just re-read your essay from the FQXi Digital/Analog Reality Competition. I certainly agree with your clear distinction there between what you term Objective Reality and Image Reality. (I might call the latter "Perceived Reality" in those relatively rare situations in which sentient beings are present to do the perceiving, but I believe it could be argued that your "image reality" exists everywhere throughout the universe whether it is perceived by a sentient being or not.)

I must confess to having not followed many of the threads going on here at FQXi. Interesting though most of them are, they also can become virtual black holes for one's precious time. It also frequently seems to be the case that bloggers such as ourselves are, in essence, "preaching to the choir."

I've sometimes become discouraged by the lack of participation/involvement of "heavy hitters" among the FQXi membership roster. Fully recognizing that they also must avoid the same time black holes, however, it certainly is understandable that they do not routinely participate here. Their time undoubtedly is even more heavily scheduled than ours. Speaking of which, however, I recently have heard on good authority that Lee Smolin is working on not just one, but two new books on the topic of the nature of time! He hopes to complete them sometime this summer, so I'm certainly waiting with bated breath to read them.

Speaking of time, I've just run up against one of those pesky, immediate real-world personal deadlines, so will plan to return to this later.

With apologies for the back-to-back posts, I wanted to alert you to a relatively minor (in size), but relatively important (in content) amendment I just made to section VII of my time paradigm essay. (Yes, the essay, along with my thinking on the topic, is always a bit of a work in progress.) Following is the new wording:

______________________________

" Because the operational definition of time (i.e., time is that which is measured by clocks) has proven to be so unquestionably successful I would be remiss if I did not discuss it further.

While not in any way intending to downplay or gainsay its impressive and unquestionable history of brilliant successes, I admit to being troubled by some aspects of the operational definition. To be clear, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the operational definition, per se. It is, after all, a definition. This not withstanding, I have an uneasy sense that there is something about the operational definition which perhaps can best be described as a lack of 'completeness.' Simply stating that time is that which is measured by clocks does not offer a great deal of insight into the underlying nature of reality. And yet the various theories which are based on the operational definition purport to do just that; i.e., they purport to offer deep insights into the underlying nature of reality. How does that come about?

I cannot escape an impression of the operational definition, together with the various theories based on that definition, as constituting a closed, internally consistent system which produces excellent mathematical results, but only so long as one remains wholly within that closed system. Is it possible, however, that some aspects of nature may not fall conveniently within that system? Could the longstanding lack of success in merging general relativity and quantum mechanics, for example, be symptomatic of such a possibility?"

________________________

Inasmuch as a major goal of this essay is to highlight differences between the operational definition of time and what I've been calling "my" paradigm for the nature of time, but which I should perhaps, to be more accurate, call "our" paradigm for the nature of time, because I believe it is shared by quite a few of us, including you and Roy Johnstone, for example, and perhaps others, I believe these relatively minor changes are significant.

I also apologize to you and to others who have been posting to this blog for temporarily "hijacking" this thread to a subject other than that originally intended. My only excuse is that I simply didn't see any other quick way to bring this information to your attention.

Thanks for looking at my essay again. Rather you than me! I have moved on a bit from there. In the essay discussion thread near the end you will find the last copy of a diagrammatic representation of "Reality in the context of physics".Its a sort of cross between a Venn diagram and flow chart on different levels. There is also an accompanying word list that explains the...

Thanks for looking at my essay again. Rather you than me! I have moved on a bit from there. In the essay discussion thread near the end you will find the last copy of a diagrammatic representation of "Reality in the context of physics".Its a sort of cross between a Venn diagram and flow chart on different levels. There is also an accompanying word list that explains the terms used on the diagram and in discussion of it. Pretty sure its in that thread somewhere. I have been advised to reconsider "photon" and "energy" because the terms are used differently in mainstream physics. I could just omit them as I don't think they are actually used on the digram but just give the way I had been thinking about them, and so was using them in conversation.

There is a significant difference in how you have just considered the Image reality and how I am thinking of it. I think what is "everywhere" is photon or EM data but that is in itself not an image. For it to become an image or manifestation it has to interact with a reality interface which alters it from potential data in the environment into a chemical or electrical output. Which is different from both the source of the input and the photon or em data that is the input. So it (the image) is not an external reality but a part of the observer whether organism, device, or sensitive material, but that appears to be the external reality.

This is what I think. What is "out there" is the fully simultaneously existing Object universe undergoing sequential change (configurations as you say)IE the material part and the data pool which is the photon/em data in the environment. The Image (visible) universe is the Image fabricated from the received data by the observers. Not what is out in space but a new amalgamation of data, with prior assumptions about the route by which the received photons arrived. I'm sure astronomers have all sorts of clever ways of collecting together the various constituents of the images that come from what they consider to be the same time and take into account known effects that can distort light paths. Never the less there can be some doubt about the faithfulness of the Image output to the material Source of the data, from which it is constructed. The image isn't out in space, EM is and anything happening to that affects the output reality and the assumption about it.

This includes the distortion of light paths by the movement of the Earth on its trajectory, causing the apparent curvature of space. Said to be the cause of gravity but actually only an effect of the motion of the mass that is the Earth upon the EM or photon paths. Rather than it being static, as is often represented like a ball on sheet. If the light is considered as waves the medium through which they are transmitted must be distorted. If thought of as photons then the accumulation of atoms around the earth that are absorbing and emitting the photons must be distorted.

Maybe that will appeal to you or maybe you have your own ideas that can account both for what necessarily is -and- what appears to be, knowing that they are different.

Our posts crossed. Thanks for the update. I think you are correct in identifying the mis-compreprehension of time as a major problem for physics.I think it is well said. It appears to me that in recent years the subject of time has been getting far more attention than previously, so I suspect you are far from alone in that "unease".

Please don't apologise. It is very good to hear from you and to see your essay. Perhaps "the paradigm" just needs enough people thinking along the same lines for it to get some kind of momentum. Unfortunately there are not enough participants here. We are a very small, mixed bag of personalities with different interests, expertise, education, passions and "faiths". With more people it would be possible to find those with similar interests/ vision and there could be more constructive group discussions. Rather than the disheartening sometimes confrontational community that we have, because we, for the most part, see things very differently and think that different things are the most important.

I hope that differentiating the role of time in the different facets of reality may be useful in allowing scientists to see how the big picture can fit together. There is passage of time from sequential change in the uni-temporal Object reality but space-time arising from the way in which data is received giving temporal spread in the output reality. That does not exist in the Object or Source reality.

You are right ,this site does seem very much like a black hole. I keep hoping that just one more really clear and succinct explanation or new way of looking at or describing things is all that is needed. But usually the posts go without comment, seemingly unnoticed, and just get lost amongst all of the other posts. Or are met with less enthusiasm than I feel they merit. Which is very disheartening.It is the same for everyone's posts which they probably also feel deserve more attention and positive evaluation than they get.

Another proverb I have come upon is "That which is given away is not valued." "As they say in Zanzibar" (David crystal).It might mean by the giver but I think it means by the recipient.So I could just as well talk to the kitchen sink. Anyway I can't afford to keep doing this. I either need to find a way to make money from this kind of thing or give up on it. As more important than talking is having food to eat and roof over our heads.

“They [photons] only have the -potential- to become an image when they interact with a reality interface that can convert the raw photon data into an output”. They always have the ‘potential’, ie the particular effect/representation of reality, exists. It is just that it is only realised if the interaction is with the appropriate sensory system, ie as opposed to a brick wall. And that realisation/perception (in your words-manifestation) will differ in form depending on the capability of the sentient organism that received it. Photographic paper, etc, is not sentient. It is an alternative to brick wall. Sentient organisms must interpret the outcome of the interaction.

“The diagram is not just about human and animal senses and observations, but a physical process that also applies to inanimate devices and materials too”. A brick wall and photographic paper are the same. It is just that we can interpret the resultant outcome with the paper, whereas with the wall, the original photon configuration ceased upon interaction, so we cannot interpret what previously existed. The diagram, or explanation as to how reality occurs, can only be presented from the perspective of sentient organisms, because they are the only objects that have developed a detection system.

What is referred to as time is actually the rate at which any given existent state (reality) is superseded by another. It is the rate of change. Timing is the measurement of this phenomenon, ie the comparison of disparate frequencies of change, or the identification of disparate existent states at any given point. In any given sequence of change, only one existent state can occur at a time. There is no ‘time’ in physical reality, it is an attribute of change thereto. There is no future or past, only the existent state which is occurring at any given point. These concept arises from a confusion about existent reality, and existent representations thereof (light, noise, vibration, etc), which, through the development of sensory systems are utilised by organisms to identify what occurred. These, unlike the reality they represent, persist in a similar/identical existent form for varying durations.

thank you for your reply. It is helpful as it allows me to explain more about the data prior to detection and how this ties in with QM uncertainty.

Yes Paul the photons do also have potential to become an image when in the environment but even when they interact for example with the retina of an eye it is still not definite that that information will become incorporated into the final image output. Some data is filtered out, other data amalgamated.

No I don't agree that the representation exists prior to its fabrication. I think it is still in a state where it can be altered by environmental factors prior to interaction with the observer and therefore is not anything definite. If the air wobbles due to rising heat the data is moved and the output will be different.A nearby explosion could send shock waves through it causing gross distortion. So it can not be said to exist in a definite form prior to the fabrication which fixes what it is as the output observed. The manifestation output is where it goes from potential, something indefinite, to something definite. That ties in with the statistical uncertainty of QM becoming a certain space-time image upon observation.

The point about being sentient is something a bit different from the physical process I am talking about. What a person thinks about the image is down to other brain activities that may be occurring simultaneously but are not necessary for the image itself to be formed.I am talking about vision and not cognition. The paper does not need to understand what the image is upon it for it to be there. It is there, it is an output, differing from the data input and the source of the data.

No Paul a brick wall and photographic paper are not the same. When the photons hit the wall they are absorbed and some are re-emitted and the wall is chemically unchanged. It may get a bit warmer. When the photons hit the paper a chemical change occurs and the chemically treated paper is altered giving an output reality that did not previously exist.

No I don't agree that sentience is necessary for the process of image reality formation shown on the diagram. Some aspects of the diagram only apply to sentient organisms, such as memory but the process of information being transferred via the data pool from Source or Object reality to Output or Image reality is the same whether the interface is an organism, or an inanimate device, or material.I think you are muddling perception or awareness with the physical process that is occurring. Sentience is not required for that. It could be a camera attached to a computer. It won't have any thoughts about what is happening when the light enters the camera, is processed automatically and becomes output on the screen. It just happens.

I think that Q/A has been helpful (At least to me) as it has identified more clearly where we have been disagreeing.

Thank you both for your thoughts and comments, upon which I will need to ponder before responding to their substance. At this juncture, I'd simply like to offer a quick bit of wisdom and perhaps levity in the form of a very clever "bon mot" which recently was coined by our fellow FQXi blogger Roy Johnstone.

You've no doubt seen the witticism, frequently attributed to John Archibald Wheeler among others, but apparently originated by one Ray Cummings (according to Wikipedia): "Time is that which keeps everything from happening at once." Roy has very cleverly turned this witticism around to make what I believe is a much more insightful and accurate observation: "Time is what allows anything to happen at all." This definitely deserves to go down in the annals of clever, insightful sayings about time.

Georgina, I can only offer moral support with regard to your comments about having food to eat and a roof over your head. Thinking deeply about the nature of time and the universe, unfortunately, is not exactly a "get rich quick scheme," at least in my experience. Even authorities on the topic who are more widely recognized, such as Lee Smolin for example, need a steady day job to pay the bills. Good luck with whatever financial issues you're facing.

It is not really a case of what they (ie photons, or any other such similar phenomena) ‘can become’ (ie an ‘image’, etc), but that a particular ‘effect’ (configuration, whatever one wants to call it) exists. And that resulted from an interaction with reality (any given existent state at any given point in time) and the ‘sensory medium’ (ie photons or whatever-which is a reality of itself). This is independent of any sensing thereof.

Should it be sensed, ie interact with a sensory capability, then it (ie the effect) can be interpreted and the organism enabled to be ‘aware’ of reality. That is, given the evolution of sensory detection, these effects constitute representations for organisms. It must exist “prior to fabrication”, otherwise there is nothing receivable upon which to fabricate. It cannot be “indefinite”. The particular existent state of any given ‘representation’ (effect) could be altered during its existence. But we know that, and by comparison of a disparate range of similar instances, and correlation with conditions prevailing, we can identify such ‘interferences’ with the original state.

The following ‘layers’ must be disentangled:

-how the effect occurs

-how the effect exists

-how the effect can be altered during its existence

-how the effect is processed by recipient organisms

The chemical alteration in the paper is not my point. There always needs to be an organism to receive information. It is just that examination of the brick wall will not reveal the original effect which existed prior to interaction, whilst examination of the paper does. In other words, the paper is effectively a surrogate sensory detection system. But only because we know how it works, and, we investigate it. How is anything known without the involvement of a sentient organism? The whole point being that reality can be no more than that which is potentially sensorily experienceable. We can know nothing else. We can of course, create as many beliefs as we want. And reality may be something else, but we can never know.

No, Paul. The rate of change is independent of the interval. That is why Newton invented the calculus of differentiation -- to show that the rate of change at which, e.g., the moon accelerates toward Earth (curvilinear acceleration) is a function of the rate of change squared; i.e., the gravitational force between bodies decreases as the...

No, Paul. The rate of change is independent of the interval. That is why Newton invented the calculus of differentiation -- to show that the rate of change at which, e.g., the moon accelerates toward Earth (curvilinear acceleration) is a function of the rate of change squared; i.e., the gravitational force between bodies decreases as the square of the distance separating them, and a body accelerating in a trajectory toward the center of the Earth increases its speed to terminal velocity as the rate of change squared. Thus a body far enough away accelerating at a sufficient rate will avoid collision and go into orbit.

With this prior knowledge, and the idea of Minkowski space-time, Einstein was able to show the general equivalence of gravitation and acceleration.

Time in physics, however, is a calculational artifact and not some fixed interval as you (and Aristotle) suggest. If what you claim were true, it would be exceedingly easy to show that motion is impossible. Think about it -- Zeno's arrow paradox would not be a paradox. The arrow would never reach a target, because time as a function of the "rate at which things happen" would give us the same rate of change in the motion of the arrow at every interval that we observe (say, photograph) it, and that rate would always be zero. On the other hand, suppose we take the flat plane of Earth (as it very nearly is at short distances) and let a rock fall to the ground at the exact instant an arrow is released from the bow in a perfectly flat trajectory. What we would find is that the arrow and the rock impact the ground at the same instant (assuming that we can do this experiment in a vacuum, without air resistance). In other words, the initial velocity of the arrow and the rock are identical, the rate at which they fall is identical (regardless of whether the trajectory is straight or curved), and the moment of impact is identical.

Using your philosophy of time, no arrow ever flew and no rock ever dropped. Using the FACTS of physics, however, we know the exact rate at which the arrow and the rock accelerated to impact; it is the rate of gravitational acceleration in Earth's gravity field. No other acceleration acts on either body.

Now -- the question to ask, whose answer shows your and Aristotle's definition of time to be utterly naive -- is, would the rate of change for the same rock and the same arrow be the same on Mars? Jupiter? Pluto? The Sun? If the laws of physics are uniform, the anwer has to be no. The objects' rate of change (i.e., measured relative motion) has to vary with the strength of the gravity field. Therefore, every interval of time is not identical to every other.

Unless one understands at least a little calculus and a little classical mechanics, one is unlikely to understand the role of time in physics -- let alone the controversies associated with it, which are subtle and numerous.

Thank you for reminding me of your one-page entry in the first FQXi essay competition. I just went back and re-read it. We certainly do share some very similar ideas about the nature of time. Your essay succinctly summarizes many of the points which I've attempted to convey, far less succinctly, in my three essays, 'Time: Illusion and Reality,' 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' and 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time,' which will be found here , here, and here.

I suspect that your success in being succinct may have worked to your disadvantage in the essay competition, because it does not reveal the depth of thought which no doubt went into the genesis of your essay. Your essay, in hindsight, almost comes across as a worthy abstract for a longer piece.

Should you have both the time and inclination, please go back and look at the essays for which I provided links above. I believe you'll see that we're in synch on many levels.

I've now had a bit of time to ponder your earlier comments and will offer a few preliminary comments thereon.

"Perhaps 'the paradigm' just needs enough people thinking along the same lines for it to get some kind of momentum."

Yes, I agree with you here, Georgina. Although science is not run like a popularity contest or like a "democracy" in which people can vote on scientific theories in a way similar to picking winners on TV shows such as American Idol, for example (thank goodness!), it does seem that there needs to be some sort of "critical mass" of interest and/or attention given to a proposed new theory or way of looking at the nature of reality to get busy scientists to focus their attention on it. They are all absorbed (not surprisingly) in working on and thinking about their own theories! If they took time to weigh the virtues of every idea proposed by every blogger on every website they'd get nothing else done. To rise to some threshold which would merit their attention, something like a grass-roots lobbying effort might have some effect. This is where I see the real virtue of the various FQXi essay competitions, for example.

"Unfortunately there are not enough participants here. We are a very small, mixed bag of personalities with different interests, expertise, education, passions and "faiths". With more people it would be possible to find those with similar interests/ vision and there could be more constructive group discussions. Rather than the disheartening sometimes confrontational community that we have, because we, for the most part, see things very differently and think that different things are the most important."

I understand what you're saying here, Georgina, but I'm not sure I fully agree. There seem to be plenty of participants; sometimes seemingly too many! But you certainly are correct about the "mixed bag" aspect; it does sometimes seem like a burlap bag full of cats, dogs, bears, fish, physicists, philosophers, crackpots, and any number of other creatures all vying for attention and supremacy. And one occasionally has a sense that it's a case of the blind leading the blind. All this not withstanding, I think it's far better than having no such venue at all! Good ideas and explanations do have a tendency to rise to the top . . . eventually. I'm deeply thankful to have a venue such as FQXi where ideas can be aired and discussed by a wide range of people having similar interests.

"There is passage of time from sequential change in the uni-temporal Object reality but space-time arising from the way in which data is received giving temporal spread in the output reality. That does not exist in the Object or Source reality."

Thank you for clarifying this for me. I believe I see the point you're driving at here.

"You are right ,this site does seem very much like a black hole. I keep hoping that just one more really clear and succinct explanation or new way of looking at or describing things is all that is needed. But usually the posts go without comment, seemingly unnoticed, and just get lost amongst all of the other posts. Or are met with less enthusiasm than I feel they merit. Which is very disheartening.It is the same for everyone's posts which they probably also feel deserve more attention and positive evaluation than they get."

Yes, it's a feeling many bloggers share in common, I'm sure. But again, I'm thankful that the venue is here at all. It gives us an opportunity to test out and hone ideas in a reasonably safe and constructive environment. Were it not for FQXi or some similar site, where could we test out ideas? I've tried to make some of my longer essays available at websites where people doing Internet searches may come across them, and that has given me some sense of satisfaction.

Bottom line: we're all fellow travelers striving toward the same goal, which is to understand this amazing universe in which we find ourselves. In the words of David Deutsch, ". . . all progress, both theoretical and practical, has resulted from a single human activity; the quest for what I call good explanations." ('The Beginning of Infinity,' p. vii)

thank you for your replies, they are much appreciated. With the recent ongoing discussion of Joy Christian's work there does seem to have been more participation and shared purpose by groups of contributors than has been usual for the site. I wish that could all have been less confrontational but it has probably still been good for the site. I can't criticize the FQXi site itself. Its wonderful- and besides if I did it would be like a gatecrasher criticising the catering.

I think we are in full agreement that time does not exist as a thing or force in reality. My essay identifies the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time, the Earth`s rotational motion.

Duration elapsing is what our clocks measure. We have duration and motion in our timeless universe.

There is no disagreement between us that "it", the EM or photon data, -exists-. Yes it must exist prior to fabrication of the output observed. I agree. The configuration of the data, which parts of it are where, the frequency and the number of photons available for receipt, which will give intensity, can alter while still in the environment. So can the position of the observer. So until detection is made what will be detected has to be indefinite. Unless you are saying that is entirely pre determined and will be what it must be. I don't think we live in that kind of fixed universe where everything that will happen is already set. With no gross disturbance of the process of transmission and no motion of the observer relative to the source then the pattern of data received will more closely resemble the source from which it originated. IMO The space-time reality (output) observed is the -manifestation- of reality from the data received not what exists externally the -actualisations- and data reflected or emitted from them. This ideas seem to me to fit with the uncertainty of QM.

Re: your point about reality being only that which can be sensed /observed. The universe is IMHO absolutely guilty of doing stuff "behind our backs", and ahead of our awareness, without us knowing anything about it. It isn't that its not reality, its just not easily proven. Not being able to provide objective evidence that an event has occurred does not mean that it hasn't happened, only that it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is where statistical methods have an advantage because they do not require complete knowledge in every event, only knowledge of what is possible.

As I said above that post, what is referred to as time, is actually the rate at which change occurs, ie as opposed to the other aspect of change which is what changed. This can be timed. My one liner to J C N was a short form of the words.

So yes, the actual speed at which any given change occurs, obviously varies (ie is “independent of the interval”). Timing is a “calculational artefact”, not time as you wrote. Time is not timing, and is being misunderstood, the physical phenomenon being frequency of change. One need not have timing, one could just compare rates of change: elephant walks n metres, whilst seas rise n metres, whilst electron spins n times. But that is cumbersome, so we have invoked a duration measuring system using some high, but constant, frequency change as the common denominator, though the units are still expressed in terms of language utilised when the concept was originally formulated (ie days, etc).

So I have never said what you think I have said. And I would agree with your comments.

On the topic of Einstein and the general equivalence of gravitation and acceleration. Is this because of the way he derived his hypothesis? It being that when a differential in force is applied (eg gravity), then that causes a change in the rate of momentum, but more importantly, an alteration in the dimension of the object. The latter was not known, but assumed to be the equivalent of an expected effect in light which could not be measured. That is, the light effect was presumed to occur but was ‘cancelled out’ by variance in dimension. If objects vary in dimension, then timing will vary, because space has varied. But the underlying effect, dimensional variance became supplanted by the notion that time is varying. Obviously, objects may, or may not, vary in dimension when force is applied. And if this does happen, there will be a relationship between force and variance.

“We have duration and motion in our timeless universe”. I am sure I have said this before. But all we actually have is change. Existent states alter, in one or more attributes. And the rate at which this occurs can be compared, either directly, or by comparison with a common denominator (this is known as timing). What is known as time is actually concerned with the physical phenomenon of rate of turnover in existent states. Motion is a particular example of change, it involves change in spatial position, each position being an existent state.

“So until detection is made what will be detected has to be indefinite”.

No, at any given point in time in its existence it is definite. It exists. It might change. But we understand how environmental effects, distance, etc, affect it. So once received, and individualism has been eradicated, we can then go through another ‘reverse engineering/abstraction’ process and discern its original state of existence. Which then, if we understand how it all works, enables us to derive what the existent state was that occurred, which upon interaction instigated the ‘it’ (whether it be noise, light, vibration, etc).

The sense in which ‘it’ is “pre-determined” is that it is independent of whatever it may subsequently interact with, which could involve a sentient organism. It is, as we know, subject to some degree of change, but fundamentally very little. Which is why a disparate range of organisms receive more or less identical inputs. And ‘it’ can persist in its, more or less, original physical form, for considerable durations.

Reality may be “guilty” of all kinds of things, but we cannot know. It is not a case of “not easily proven”. It cannot be proven. Fullstop. Once one crosses the boundary of examining reality in terms of its manifestation to us, then all is based on belief. All are equally valid, or invalid. Some just, superficially, appear more rational than others. And I did not imply, and never have, that “not being able to provide objective evidence that an event has occurred does not mean that it hasn't happened, only that it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt”. Note the word “potentially” sensorily experienceable. As I have said many times, one has to allow for a variety of circumstances where direct experience is not achievable, and hypothecation must occur. But, all this is within the constraints of how reality occurs to us. Which may be different to how it is, but it all we have.

It exists, there is data in the environment, I have agreed with that. It isn't possible to freeze time, so what it is at a point in time seems an unrealistic viewpoint to take. IMHO It is something spread over time, or rather the sequence of iterations of the Object universe, with the potential to alter in distribution, intensity and frequency prior to being detected. At detection the selection of data from which the manifestation can be formed has been made, out of all of the potential data in the environment. That selection is data that can no longer be altered by interaction with the external environment, as it is no longer out there. But it will be either filtered out or undergo processing into the output.

I agree it (the data) is independent of the observer prior to detection but the manifestation is not. As the data selection depends upon what the observer does as well as the data available in the environment. So the data that will form the manifestation can not be said to be predetermined because it is up to the observer not the environment alone. He could shut his eyes , turn his back or move in some other way altering the data intercepted. So what will be received is not predetermined but it is pre-written. It exists in the environment (along with a lot of other data that will not be received) with only the potential to be received.

The manifestation that I am talking about is an observed output not rationalisation or cognition or opinion.It might be easier to think of it in terms of output on a computer screen rather than something in a human mind. With advances in brain wave study it could be possible (in the future) to have objective comparison of individual manifestation outputs.

RE. "not being able to provide objective evidence that an event has occurred does not mean that it hasn't happened, only that it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt". Yes I know you did not imply it. I said it. Because that's how it is.

I don't know for certain what can't be done. Wilhelmus did make me think that there may be ways of thinking that we haven't thought of yet. Perhaps as he suggested advances in AI development, (and enhancing machine learning) will enable us to learn other ways of thinking too.

Okay re the subject of time -- although "duration" is only one way to think of time, not the only way.

You wrote "On the topic of Einstein and the general equivalence of gravitation and acceleration. Is this because of the way he derived his hypothesis? It being that when a differential in force is applied (eg gravity), then that causes a change in the rate of momentum, but more importantly, an alteration in the dimension of the object."

Gravity is not a force in Einstein's theory. It is a result of the shape of spacetime caused by the interaction of mass and space. When you speak of 'alteration in the dimension of the object,' be aware that this only applies to the direction of the object's motion. Relative measurements among observers in different states of motion give different (though equally valid) results. When the results are analyzed as a whole, we see clearly that all observers occupy the same unchanged physical space; i.e., the physics of spacetime is globally the same for all observers even though measurement results vary locally according to the observers states of relative motion.

One must undertand relativity as a field theory. Like Descartes, Einstein recognized that "No space is empty of the field." To unify locally discrete measurement results with the globally continuous field, in a seamless mathematical theory, is one of the biggest prizes in physics. (And it's what the Joy Christian framework does -- destroys the boundary between global continuity, i.e. the topology of space, and local discrete measures in one unifying measurement function continuous from the initial condition.)

You continue "The latter was not known, but assumed to be the equivalent of an expected effect in light which could not be measured. That is, the light effect was presumed to occur but was ‘cancelled out’ by variance in dimension. If objects vary in dimension, then timing will vary, because space has varied. But the underlying effect, dimensional variance became supplanted by the notion that time is varying. Obviously, objects may, or may not, vary in dimension when force is applied. And if this does happen, there will be a relationship between force and variance."

That's true, but trivial. The relation between "force and variance" of f = ma was shown long ago by Newton. The "a" term is where time enters, as a measure of the rate of change of the rate of change (rate of change squared, which is acceleration) that I was trying to get you to understand earlier.

"We have one existent state we call reality. There is motion in reality, and the existent state endures"

There is one existent state, whether one is referring to the entirety of reality or just an elementary particle, at any given point in time. At another point in time that existent state has altered. Motion is one form of alteration, spatial position has changed, the previous existent state has not endured. The 'thing' which we ascribe as being the same thing, even though actually it has altered in many but is just still superficially recogisable as such, has also changed in its position.

“It isn't possible to freeze time, so what it is at a point in time seems an unrealistic viewpoint to take”

One does not “freeze” time, but establishes what happened at any given point thereof. Something must have happened at each point in time, because things occurred and changed. It may be difficult to undertake this analysis, but that does not make it an “unrealistic viewpoint”. That is only so if this contradicts how reality occurs. Nothing is “spread over time”, in the sense that there is some form of indefiniteness. At any given point in time, there was a definitive existent state, we just have difficulty establishing it, as you indicate in the rest of that sentence.

“I agree it (the data) is independent of the observer prior to detection but the manifestation is not”

Obviously so, I doubt if you would find anyone who believes otherwise. But since it was independent, then a definitive state existed. Again, the issue is to, by abstraction, identify what that was from the disparate range of individual perceptions (“manifestation”) available. What “will be received” is “pre-determined” or “pre-written” (these phrases must mean the same) because its existence is independent of the observer. It might be received on the back of the head, or by a rock, and different observers will process the same information differently. “The manifestation that I am talking about is an observed output…” I understand what you are referring to, it is actually individual articulated perceptions. But they are precisely that, the output from a particular processing of input received. We want to identify the latter, not what any given individual organism ‘turns it into’, but unfortunately we only have that as the start point.

Re your last paragraph. The point is that our only reference for proof is direct experience, confirmed by many perceptions. In order to progress, we accept hypothecated occurrences based thereon, ie indirect experiences. But we are, by definition, always locked into that sensory loop, whatever the ‘mode of thinking’. Because, for us (all organisms), reality only exists as a function of sensory detection.

“…although "duration" is only one way to think of time, not the only way”

The point is, what occurs, which a concept can refer to. In the case of physical existence, there is no entity which corresponds with time. There is a rate at which any given existent state changes, which could be in respect of any given attribute. In the case of the...

“…although "duration" is only one way to think of time, not the only way”

The point is, what occurs, which a concept can refer to. In the case of physical existence, there is no entity which corresponds with time. There is a rate at which any given existent state changes, which could be in respect of any given attribute. In the case of the measuring system (timing), we refer to ‘duration’, but that is a selected frequency of change being used as a reference. In other words, x did not take n minutes to occur. If the device being used was a quartz watch, then x occurred whilst z oscillations occurred in a particular piece of quartz. Timing is the comparison of frequencies of change. The latter being the actual physical event which the concept of time corresponds with.

“Gravity is not a force in Einstein's theory”

?? “This acceleration or curvature corresponds to the influence on the moving body of the gravitational field prevailing relatively to the original reference body. It is known that a gravitational field influences the movement of bodies in this way, so that our consideration supplies us with nothing essentially new” (Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 22). “The special theory of relativity has reference to Galileian domains, ie to those in which no gravitational field exists…In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. (Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 28). Etc, etc. Which then relates back to the Lorentz (and Fitzgerald) hypothesis of contraction in the direction of motion (by 1904 this being associated with “all electrons are flattened ellipsoids with their smaller axes in the direction of motion”). The effect in direction of travel only, being connected to the original presumption about the outcome of the M&M experiment. Though, of course, irrespective of derivation, the hypothesis may be correct.

“Relative measurements among observers in different states of motion give different (though equally valid) results”

Because, supposedly, different states of motion are the result of differential forces. And when such occurs, objects do not maintain their ‘rest’ shape. And if the apparently same object is not maintaining its shape, then space alters and hence the timing of motion will be different from that expected if shape had been maintained. ‘Squashed bus’ takes ‘longer’ to reach bus stop than not-squashed bus, because there is ‘further’ to travel. Everything is dependent upon the ‘state’ of the object, which is a function of forces being exerted upon it. And comparison (measurement) must involve like for like, or compensate for the difference first. It is neither time nor space which is, supposedly, variable, but object shape.

I am not sure what you mean by “trivial” (last para). If your point is that the validity of any hypothesis is not a function of its derivation, that is correct. But the point here is that the underlying effect, ie alteration in object shape, was ‘lost’ from an early stage, and morphed into concerns over time (more precisely-timing) and space. The actual value of the relationship is another matter.

yes the photons are somewhere in each iteration of the Object universe. You were arguing against my saying that they, the unreceived em/photon data (that have the potential to produce the image output), were something indefinite- rather than "an existent representation" in your words, prior to receipt by an observer.

yes the photons are somewhere in each iteration of the Object universe. You were arguing against my saying that they, the unreceived em/photon data (that have the potential to produce the image output), were something indefinite- rather than "an existent representation" in your words, prior to receipt by an observer.

The collection of data related to a particular actualisation can be altered in relative position (cf. to other parts of the data) altering the observed form ,altered in frequency (which could alter colour)or diminished in amount(which could alter brightness/contrast). This can happen between emission from source and receipt, through interaction with the environment. So that which is potentially observable (the data still in the environment) isn't definite but something potentially undergoing various alterations.

Each photon between emission and absorption could be considered something definite (but unknown) and the collection of data in a single iteration too, but the collection of data between source and observer isn't throughout its transmission one definite "template"that will give an inevitable output. I think it is potentially more variable than the actualised source. Which can also undergo changes, but is more stable because it is made of fermion particles held together by the various forces, due to the relationship of its parts. It is more definite as it is affected less by interaction with the environment. So though the warmth of the air can make the photon data change in relative position giving a wobbly output image it does not make the actualised object wobbly. More energy is needed for that. Movement of the observer can alter the data received, and so the form of the manifestation observed but the actualised object itself is unaffected by the motion of the observer, being entirely independent.

Re."pre-determined" and "pre-written", these do not have the same meaning.I am using pre-written to mean that the data that will give the observed present already exists in the environment. Not that all data is completely fixed and can not be altered or corrupted or lost. To say that what the observer will receive is predetermined means that no variation of output is possible. There can only be one possible output set by the universe. That is not so as there can be environmental alteration of the available data between emission from source and receipt, the observer position can alter, as well as when the observation will be made. So the output depends upon the data, the environment, and the observer selections (first and second ie when and where /how) from out of all of the pre-written data available. The second scenario gives a partial predetermination and a place in the universe for freewill and self determination rather than the predetermined clockwork scenario that the universe alone decrees.

I agree with you nothing is actually spread over time.I should have put that phrase in quotation marks to show it was a figure of speech. I actually said "It is something spread over time, or rather the sequence of iterations of the Object universe, with the potential to alter in distribution, intensity and frequency prior to being detected." The distribution over the sequence of iterations is more correct and if you recall only the youngest of the sequence still exists, so the spread over is a kind of imaginary view of what has been rather than what is.

No the output I am talking about is not "individual articulated perceptions". It is a physical output that could exist even without the capacity to articulate it. It might be theoretically produced by excised retina, optic nerve and visual cortex tissue. It might be produced by a camera attached to a computer, or a projector and screen or photographic film or a video camera.

The pod cast video of David Eagleman's talk on neural relativity is interesting in regard to perception of reality. Showing that estimation of temporal occurrence is more flexible than has been generally thought

Unless I'm hallucinating, this discussion actually appears to be converging slowly toward some form of potential agreement. At least it does not appear to be wildly diverging. That's encouraging!

While trying to stay on the same converging, constructive track I'd like to suggest a re-framing the discussion in a slightly different light. As I've written elsewhere, I believe it's constructive to define "a particular time" as being identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe. I believe this is what Brian Greene has called a mental freeze-frame image of the entire universe right now. I believe it's also what Georgina has called Objective Reality. Moreover, I think we all agree that the universe is not static; it evolves in accordance with rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics.

Please consider the following: if we accept (at least for the sake of argument) that a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe, I believe it follows that time changes from one particular time to another (i.e., "flows") if, and only if, the configuration of the universe changes. I believe it also is true that the configuration of the universe changes if, and only if, some portion of the universe is displaced relative to some other portion. Thus, in order to observe and measure a change from one particular time to another it is necessary to observe and measure a displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion. But displacements are measured in units of displacement, i.e., length, suggesting that what we refer to as "time" is an emergent phenomenon rather than an independent building block of nature. Perhaps merely another way of getting at the idea that "time," per se, is not something ontologically real, in and of itself.

Our ability to perceive and "make sense of" what we call "particular times" and "the flow of time" arises from our ability as sentient beings to collect, integrate, and process sensory data which arrive at our location subsequent to these data having traveled here from locations (points of origin) throughout the observable universe.

Science (as well as this discussion) is possible only because a sufficient number of us sentient beings exist and succeed in collecting, integrating, and processing data in ways that are sufficiently mutually consistent and self-reinforcing that we have something in common about which to communicate. Barring solipsism, this unquestionably is our Objective Reality. This is our world. Science is just our way of trying to explain and make sense of it. Not an easy job, but we seem to love and thrive on a good challenge!

thank you for seeing the convergence. It is quite easy to get caught up in the differences of opinion and not appreciate agreement where it exists. Mr. Smith you have made another good, and clear, argument for considering time to be emergent.

The trouble with a phrase like "right now" is that it does not clearly differentiate what that means for nature -independent of human experience-, rather than the experienced present.I do not know if Brian Greene has elaborated on that concept. We all have a feeling of what "right now" is but it is lagging behind the creation of data that can be processed and interpreted as that experience of "right -now". Which you have alluded to in your post Mr. Smith where you say -"our ability as sentient beings to collect, integrate, and process sensory data which arrive at our location subsequent to these data having traveled here...") . David Eagleman's talk, available on the pod cast, also shows how much temporal flexibility there is even within the processing of input data to give a "right -now" experience. That is why I have been using the term "Uni-temporal-Now", which is the total simultaneity of the entire Object universe. (Rather than fabricated image universe, formed from received data.)

The Present or now (present-now or right now) is not an identical copy of Uni-temporal -Now, just lagging behind events, but a new fabrication from data, which can bring together objects and events in positions/configurations and forms that did not exist at all in any single iteration of the Object reality. Basing understanding of what is occurring, to the objects, upon the fabricated output is problematic. Taking the fabricated space-time to be the external reality gives rise to the temporal paradoxes. It also means that not only is the time component of space- time emergent but so is the space component.

That's different from saying at the foundational level there is no time and there is no space. There is still passage of time due to change of arrangement or configuration; and the objects and particles have relationships involving separations and orientations relative to each other, and scales and amounts, so there must be an unobservable pattern in which those relationships exist somewhere.I don't know what it should be called but I have come across the term pre-space. It might be appropriate as it is where the objects are prior to their being observed in the fabricated image output space or space-time.

Maybe that's running on too far. It has taken a long time for me to confidently let go of experienced space as something foundational too, because it seems more real and tangible than time, but it isn't. The 2cm tall building in the distance is all the evidence required.

“yes the photons are somewhere in each iteration of the Object universe”.

Any subsequent iteration of the ‘Object universe’ is irrelevant, other than that enables a ‘video’ rather than a ‘snapshot’ (which might be how we see). But the point is that the ‘effect’ in photons which carries what can be translated by sensory systems on receipt as an ‘image’...

“yes the photons are somewhere in each iteration of the Object universe”.

Any subsequent iteration of the ‘Object universe’ is irrelevant, other than that enables a ‘video’ rather than a ‘snapshot’ (which might be how we see). But the point is that the ‘effect’ in photons which carries what can be translated by sensory systems on receipt as an ‘image’ of an existent state is definitive. It is in many different positions, and may have already ceased to exist in some, have encountered something. After all, observers all around any given entity see it. Now, I do not know how this works, but I would guess the resultant effect from any given interaction of some photons with an existent state, is replicated, and possibly multiplies, as it travels in any direction. The alternative is that each effect created is actually different, but so similar to the next, that different recipient observers effectively see the same thing. Any particular example of any given effect may be altered by the particular environmental conditions it encounters during its existence, but that is a different matter, and we can establish whether that happened. You write about it being altered, that this, there was some original to alter. And anyway, altered or otherwise, it is definite (independent of observer). All this must be correct (allowing for the unknown about how it specifically occurs) because otherwise we would have a bizarre existence, with some not receiving anything (even though there was a direct line of sight), and others receiving distinctly different effects. Let alone how subsequent processing of the same received effect can result in different outcomes depending on the capability of the individual organism.

“To say that what the observer will receive is predetermined means that no variation of output is possible”

Not in the way I express it, because the critical distinction is independence of effect (physical representation of reality) and observer. The organism has no effect whatsoever upon what is received by any given sensory system. Unfortunately, individual organisms can then interpret what was received in different ways. Obviously, during its existence, which could have been billions of years, any given received effect could have undergone change. At the start point, ie upon interaction, there is one “output set” (allowing for the specific unknown I mentioned above).

Obviously the “iterations of the Object Universe” are “spread over time”. By definition, iterations cannot exist at the same point in time. In respect of any given sequence (whether it be the entirety of reality, or one elementary particle) only one existent state (iteration) can exist at a time.

Your differentiation of perceptions and physical processes in the sensory systems is correct, but somewhat torturous. Are we really going to directly access this? And anyway, it will be different because individuals are different. So we will have cut out the last part of the process, ie individual interpretation, but still need to abstract/compare results to eliminate these differences, before then establishing if environmental factors played a part, before finally inferring what existent state instigated the received effects.

“Would you also say, `Motion is one form of alteration, spatial position has changed, the previous position has not endured, therefore reality has not endured.`?

Yes. That is what I said, ie existent state. There cannot be a reality whereby the same ‘it/entity’ is in more than one spatial position. In fact, if you think about it. Each occupation of a different spatial position is not only a new reality, but that occupation (ie movement) can only occur in a sequence of existent states where each subsequent spatial position possible is occupied. In other words, one cannot have a reality whereby ‘entity’ z is in spatial position a and e at the same time. But there must have been realities which included the existent states of positions b c d, before the reality involving position e occurred. Only one existent state can occur at a time. The same logic applies to cause and effect. A subsequent reality can only occur by virtue of the interaction of ‘things’ that were in spatial proximity to each other.

The problem here is that this ‘turnover’ is so fast, we are missing it, and considering change which actually encompasses change. That is, we are referring to a physical reality that is a composite of many.

“I believe it's constructive to define "a particular time" as being identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe”

This is not just ‘constructive’, it is correct. This is the only way that physical reality, as known to us, can exist. And it determines what constitutes a unit of time for the measuring system (timing), ie the duration in which the quickest example of change occurs. There is only one existent state at a time. Only the present exists. The confusion arises because that which enables us to sense it (noise, light, heat, vibration, etc), persists for more than one point in time (and there are many for each existent state). As I have said many times, the phenomenon referred to as time, is actually the frequency with which change occurs.

"Each occupation of a different spatial position is not only a new reality, but that occupation (ie movement) can only occur in a sequence of existent states where each subsequent spatial position possible is occupied."

The occupation of different spatial positions describes motion. How does motion create new realty? Wouldn`t you say that motion reconfigures existing reality?

Might you be imagining `spontaneous creation`, or frame by frame advancement of a `block universe`?

I do not disagree that the data in the environment is independent of the observer. I was trying to describe that it can change. For example if the light passes through coloured glass, or passes through water, or through warm rising air. So the data already existing in the environment is prone to change and therefore the data, as a collective thing, can not be said to be something definite- in form, colour or brightness.It is something that is potentially variable.It can also appear different depending upon the sample of the data that is received and processed by the observer. And the observer can decide when and where the data will be received by alteration of position in space.

Though the differentiation of the physical process of fabrication of the output reality from perception is, in your opinion, somewhat torturous I think it is necessary. I allows the segregation of what is the same basic phenomenon that also occurs with inanimate reality interfaces, but through complex biochemical means from cognition and psychology. Though cognition and psychology are interesting in their own right, the complexities of how the mind works are not highly relevant to mainstream physics. Might be relevant to AI developers or other very specialist areas of research but not physics in general.

"I believe it's constructive to define 'a particular time' as being identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe

This is not just 'constructive,' it is correct. This is the only way that physical reality, as known to us, can exist."

Thank you! We are in 100 percent agreement on this much, at least! Progress!

"As I have said many times, the phenomenon referred to as time, is actually the frequency with which change occurs."

You lose me a bit here, Paul. Perhaps I'm just being dense (wouldn't be the first time), but the concept of "frequency" has the concept of "time" built into it. A radio "frequency," for example is defined as the number of "cycles per second." Perhaps you mean something different when you use the word frequency? I'm confused on the point you're driving at here.

My take on the phenomenon referred to as time is perhaps slightly different; I conjecture that what we perceive as the flow of time is, in reality, nothing more and nothing less than the evolution of the physical universe, an evolution governed by rules which we strive to understand and which we refer to as the laws of physics. The universe simply evolves, i.e., its configuration changes. I see no need (or way) to introduce a notion of "frequency" into this picture, but I'm willing to be schooled on your ideas on this. I do believe that our ideas are not far apart.

"The occupation of different spatial positions describes motion. How does motion create new realty? Wouldn`t you say that motion reconfigures existing reality? "

I know you were writing to Paul when you wrote this, but I'd like to jump in here. I definitely agree with your suggestion here that motion (i.e., the displacement of some portion of the universe relative to some other portion) reconfigures existing reality. The configuration of the universe evolves, meaning that existing reality evolves. Nothing is "created" or "destroyed" other than configurations, which evolve from one to another.

"As I said, my essay identifies the fundamental physical mechanism responsible for maintaining our confusion over the nature of time, the Earth`s rotational motion."

I agree that the Earth's rotation is what led primitive humans to think in terms of a flow of time, and this subsequently has led to confusion about the nature of time. That said, it certainly is not *only* the Earth's rotation which we perceive as the flow of time. Even if the Earth were (hypothetically, of course) to stop rotating, we would still see time changing as other things continued to move and change. Just wanted to be sure we're clear on this.

Thanks for complimenting the marketing of my time essays. Unfortunately, not deserved though. I've simply used the essays as a way to document and distill some 50 or more years spent reading what other have written and pondering the nature of time, recognizing that extra credit is not awarded merely for duration of thinking about a topic, but only for the quality of thought. Only readers can judge the latter. As the saying goes, time will tell.

I'm personally totally convinced that a new paradigm for the nature of time must be adopted if science is to progress beyond limits imposed by the operational definition of time. I suspect that the longstanding difficulty encountered in efforts to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics may be symptomatic of this problem, as I've described in my essay 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time.'

I wish we could all meet together in some pleasant venue to discuss these matters in person. This blog is better than nothing, but it leaves much to be desired in terms of clear, rapid communication.

“The occupation of different spatial positions describes motion. How does motion create new realty? Wouldn`t you say that motion reconfigures existing reality?”

Because each new position is different. The previous position ceases to exist. Reality, at any given point in time, is that which is existent. Yes, it is a ‘reconfiguration’ of what was existent, but that has ceased to exist. ‘It’ (whatever it is) is in a different position. ‘It’ cannot be in two positions at the same point in time. And think on this. After several such ‘reconfigurations’, ‘it’ may no longer be recognisable as ‘it’, and we label it as some other ‘it’, or even deem it as ceased to exist. But that is only correct in the sense that its superficial form which we sense, has altered beyond that to which we attach the original ‘it’ label. It is a ‘last straw broke the camel’s back’ type situation. Because in reality, ‘it’ was different at each configuration. In other words, it is ontologically incorrect to conceptualise reality in terms of ‘its’, which then change, because this ascribes reality with a level of persistence it does not actually have.

"`It` (whatever it is) is in a different position. `It` cannot be in two positions at the same point in time."

Why are you talking about two positions at the same time? Are you introducing a new concept?

Paul, I share Jim's puzzlement about what you're trying to describe here. We all appear to be very close to agreement, and yet also not quite there. What is causing this lack of full concurrence?

Let me offer something which might help. Imagine the universe as a shoe box containing three billiard balls. The balls are free to rattle around. They will always have some configuration (arrangement) relative to one another. That arrangement can change in essentially an infinite number of ways. Each arrangement represents a different particular time. The balls, by definition, are never in different places at the same time. If they are in different places, then, by definition, it is a different time. The balls are never created or destroyed; but the configuration of this universe evolves (time changes, or "flows") as the balls move relative to one another.

If the balls were short-lived sub-atomic particles, we would have a much more complex universe, but the same basic principle would apply. As things change, the configuration of the universe changes. Each new configuration is, by definition, a new particular time.

Does this help to clarify things at all? If not, please offer your alternate view.

I know. And I know it can change, this is obvious. But none of that impacts on the fact that what was initiated from the interaction with the existent state, were physically existent representations of that state, in whatever sensory mode is being considered. Albeit, when finally received by sentient organisms, there may be some variation between those representations because of specific environmental circumstances acting upon them during their existence. But one can only speak of variation, because there was known to be an original state, and how environmental factors impinge on this state during its existence are known.

Re your second paragraph. As said before, but individual sensory capabilities are different. So, as with any other phase in the process, there is still a need to abstract from individual circumstances to a ‘perfect’ optimum, even if one can avoid the ‘mind processing’ stage. This is the point above. There was one, original representation. But even before receipt by any individual, what becomes receivable from individual to individual could have been altered. So by comparison and known variables, one is at each stage eradicating external influences to establish the original.

Re 5th paragraph (time). Careful to differentiate time as in timing, the duration measuring system. From a non-existent physical phenomenon that people are alluding to with time. There is no existent entity in reality which corresponds with time. What does exist is the frequency with which change occurs. We could dispense with the timing system. Compare frequencies of change directly, and talk in terms of change, ie what changed and how quickly compared to another example of change.

As is the purpose of any measuring system, deploying an appropriate reference against which to compare all examples, just ‘makes life easier’. The logic is the same. Because timing is the comparison of frequencies of change. In a quartz watch it is oscillations.

Or in ‘blunt’ language. There is no such thing as time. There is change (re-configuration), which occurs in many different forms, both in terms of what changes, and the speed at which it does so. To quantify the latter, especially since the former are so disparate, we have a measuring system, known (unfortunately!) as time.

The earth’s rotation was the ‘first’ timing device, hence the fossilised language used to describe units of timing. In reality, as I have just said above, timing is the comparison of frequencies of change. That certainly does not help, but the basic confusion arises because we have not ‘got our heads’ around the fact that there is only one state in existence at a time. It is a state within which no change occurs. Because if change does occur, then, by definition, that is a different existent state. So, the duration of any existent state is, to us, vanishingly short. We tend, for very obvious reasons, to view reality as much more static than it is. Then get confused when it ‘does not seem to work’. Whereas in fact, we are treating several realities as if they were one. The other source of confusion is that we do not sense reality, but receive physically existent representations of it (ie light, noise, heat, vibration). And for each existent state, there are many existent representations (within each sensory mode), which can continue to exist (albeit some alteration may occur due to environmental factors) for varying, and considerable durations.

Jim, re your subsequent question: “Why are you talking about two positions at the same time? Are you introducing a new concept?

No, that is what motion is, ie being in different spatial positions. Hence being in one spatial position is a different reality from when in the next, because the former must have ceased to exist so that it can then exist in the latter. This (motion) being just one example of change.

JCN, re your billiard balls. What you are doing here is ascribing the balls with a persistence of existence which they do not actually have. It is not that the balls continue to exist, but in different positions. At any given point in time, the balls exist in one position, and only in that position. At another point in time, they occupy another spatial position, but the previous one has ceased. In other words, the balls are only existent balls in a particular position at a particular time. The key caveat in that paragraph is “The balls are never created or destroyed”. No, they have not been reconfigured to that extent, but they have been reconfigured.

The ‘trick’ is to get out of the mindset of ‘things’ which then change, to state of ‘thing’ as at any given point in time. It being only a ‘thing’ because, at a superficial level, it appears the same.

JCN, re your billiard balls. What you are doing here is ascribing the balls with a persistence of existence which they do not actually have. It is not that the balls continue to exist, but in different positions. At any given point in time, the balls exist in one position, and only in that position. At another point in time, they occupy another spatial position, but the previous one has ceased. In other words, the balls are only existent balls in a particular position at a particular time. The key caveat in that paragraph is 'The balls are never created or destroyed.' No, they have not been reconfigured to that extent, but they have been reconfigured.

The "trick" is to get out of the mindset of "things" which then change, to state of "thing" as at any given point in time. It being only a "thing" because, at a superficial level, it appears the same.

_____________________________

If I understand what you're saying here, Paul, then we are *not* in agreement at all, contrary to what I had previously thought! This is frustrating, having previously thought that we apparently were so near to agreement and yet now discovering that we apparently are so far apart!

Yes, I *am* ascribing to the balls a persistence of existence! What leads you to believe that they do *not* have a persistence of existence? Please explain. The only thing the balls are doing is moving relative to one another. Each new configuration of the balls (each new arrangement of the balls relative to one another) equates, by definition, to a new particular time. I thought you said in an earlier post that you agree that a particular time is identically equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe. Are we using exactly these same words to describe two starkly different concepts of what's really happening? Apparently so! Amazing! John Archibald Wheeler was more correct than even he could have known. We really do need to learn how to use our words!

Back to the shoe box. the *only* thing that ceases to exist when the balls move is a particular arrangement of the billiard balls, not the balls themselves.

I honestly simply do not understand what you mean when you say The "trick" is to get out of the mindset of "things" which then change, to state of "thing" as at any given point in time. It being only a "thing" because, at a superficial level, it appears the same.

I'm really trying to get my head around what you're trying to convey with these words, Paul, but it just doesn't convey any logical meaning to me. Sorry. Can you please try again to explain what you mean, perhaps in different words? Thank you.

Good. Essentially my point is that any form of change must represent a different existent state (reality), as one cannot have more than one existent state in existence , within any given sequence, at the same time.

I do not think this relates to Block Universe, because I have had this suggestion a couple of times, and have looked it up. But, disturbingly(!), I cannot recall why. I seem to be less able to remember new stuff these days. If you can, easily (or if you want to) write a para that portrays the essentials of this concept, then I will relate to it.

“If I understand what you're saying here, Paul, then we are *not* in agreement at all, contrary to what I had previously thought!”

I thought this might be the case, because after your comment about ‘configuration at a time’, I then “lost” you on a point about time which follows on from that. Apologies if it is my expression, but I am utilising our language, and that embodies an ontologically incorrect view (ie about the persistence of ‘its’, and a presumption that we sense reality directly).

“Yes, I *am* ascribing to the balls a persistence of existence! What leads you to believe that they do *not* have a persistence of existence? Please explain. The only thing the balls are doing is moving relative to one another” & “Back to the shoe box. the *only* thing that ceases to exist when the balls move is a particular arrangement of the billiard balls, not the balls themselves”

Now, just assuming that over whatever duration one is considering, the only form of change that occurs to these entities labelled balls, is movement (ie alteration in spatial position). [My point there being that it is not, a considerable amount of change occurs to these entities on a relentless basis-but forget that]. If the entity known as ball is in a different spatial position, then it is not in the previous spatial position. Any form of change must represent a different reality/existent state, because only one form can exist at a time. The balls, or indeed any other such ‘it/thing’ do not continue to exist over time. As at each point in time, there is change, ie there is difference, another existent state. That is, a different ‘it/thing’, there is only one at a time. But it looks the same to us, because we are judging ‘sameness’ on superficial attributes.

So, as at any given point in time (in the sense of timing) there exists a particular configuration. That configuration changes. The rate at which any given change occurs is the physical phenomenon which gives rise to the notion of time, as in the sense of something existent. Assuming what changes is not ‘critical’, then we ascribe a level of persistence to reality which does not actually occur. Coupled with the fact that representations of that reality, which is what we sense, exist in large numbers and continue to do so, contrary to the reality being represented.

Thank you for making a good effort to explain the point you're driving at using a different set of words. I'll do my best to compare and contrast where I see us agreeing and differing.

__________________________

'So, as at any given point in time (in the sense of timing) there exists a particular configuration.'

[It's my view that "any given point in time" is exactly the same as "a particular time," which is identically equivalent to "a particular configuration of the universe," which I believe is the same as what Brian Greene has described as a mental freeze-frame image of the entire universe. I don't understand what additional meaning you intend to convey by the parenthetical (in the sense of timing). Those words convey no meaning to me. Sorry.]

'That configuration changes.'

[We are in total agreement about this.]

'The rate at which any given change occurs is the physical phenomenon which gives rise to the notion of time, as in the sense of something existent.'

[When you use the word "rate" you introduce a new concept. "Rate" implies the notion of time as being something which is measured by clocks, which is the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks). A "rate of change" would be something like meters per second. I do not understand what you mean by "gives rise to the notion of time, as in the sense of something existent." Do you mean it gives rise to the notion of "time" as being a "thing" having an ontological reality separate from a particular configuration of the universe? I'm confused.]

Assuming what changes is not "critical", then we ascribe a level of persistence to reality which does not actually occur. Coupled with the fact that representations of that reality, which is what we sense, exist in large numbers and continue to do so, contrary to the reality being represented.

[You lose me here, Paul. What do you mean by "critical"? We ascribe persistence to reality because physical objects *do* persist, and they move relative to one another. It's the movement of objects which persist, relative to one another, which gives rise to the notion of a so-called "flow of time."]

Paul, I gather from your post above to Jim in which you expressed uncertainty about the concept of block time that you have not spent a great deal of time looking at the broader picture of what others have written on the topic of time. Block time is a big (and controversial) part of contemporary thinking about the nature of time.

Have you taken the time to read the three essays which I've written on the nature of time, in which I've spelled out my thinking as clearly as I'm able? If not, we're working at a considerable disadvantage. Lest we continue to spin our wheels here indefinitely, so to speak, please take the time to read carefully my three essays which will be found here , here, and here. Then we will have more shared ideas to discuss and to either agree or disagree about.

If you've written comparable essays setting forth your ideas I'll be more than happy to take a look at them. Thanks.

I`m not the right person to advise you on `Block Universe` models, or on where to find them? I would first check the FQXi site. There could be in the first essay contest on the nature of time?

There was a concept called something like `spontaneous creation`, which we discussed in Astonomy class back in the day. The only thing I remember about that idea, was that it was supposed to have started in a pub?

Yep. At a particular/specified/given point/whatever conveys the same meaning, in time (as in timing) there is a particular configuration of the universe (or indeed any entity) or in my words an existent physical state. I am not sure whether the words you quote from Brian Greene mean the same as this, I would have to look at the context. I am wary of the phrase ‘mental freeze frame...

Yep. At a particular/specified/given point/whatever conveys the same meaning, in time (as in timing) there is a particular configuration of the universe (or indeed any entity) or in my words an existent physical state. I am not sure whether the words you quote from Brian Greene mean the same as this, I would have to look at the context. I am wary of the phrase ‘mental freeze frame image’, because (and possibly this is just because it is out of context) this has connotations of being a function of perception. Whereas, this is how reality occurs.

The caveat “in the sense of timing” was to stress that in using the word time, I was referring to the duration measuring system. Time is also used to refer to something existent, which is where the problem starts, because it is usually incorrect. Obviously, something occurs in reality which prompts this concept. And it is the frequency with which any given change occurs. Really, when speaking of phenomena in reality we should be talking of change, not time, and in terms of what changed and how quickly it did so compared to another example of change. Time/timing should be solely used to refer to the measuring system we have devised to quantify the latter. Which brings us back to the above which we agree on. Timing involves either a specified point (point in time), or the elapse of more than one defined points from one specified point to another (duration). And at each point in time ‘it’ (whether referring to the entirety of reality or an entity) has a definitive existent state (configuration). Or, over a specified duration, certain changes occur ie there is a sequence of existent states). These points of time refer to some frequency of change (eg crystal oscillation) which is used as a reference, though they are described in redundant language (eg minutes, days).

Rate, or frequency, is not a ‘new concept’. Change occurs. Change is difference. That difference has substance (ie what altered) and a rate/frequency (ie how fast it did so in comparison to some other change). This is the physical phenomenon that is occurring, and what the concept ‘time’ (as in something existent) corresponds to. Though, as said above, it would be better if we eradicated this use of the word, but it is too late.

What do I mean by “critical”. A change which occurs, that causes us to stop referring to a particular configuration as the same thing. Even though, at every point in time, it is actually different, so it is never the same thing. It just, despite changes, retains certain superficial attributes which enable us to keep referring to it with the same label (ie as if it were the same/persisting). ‘Objects’ do not persist, we conceptualise reality that way. Understandably. Think on this. I am 60. But am I? No. Because the entity known as Paul Reed is undergoing relentless and significant change. Apart from anything else, all parts which constitute this entity are replaced on various cycles. I cannot remember the exact number, but whatever takes the longest to replace, means that the entire entity is ‘new’ on (say) a 7 year cycle (some parts having been renewed many times in that duration). Despite this, and obvious differences, we continue to refer to the entity as Paul Reed, or the ball, or the cathedral, whatever. Only upon a change known as death does this stop. But logically, that is just another reconfiguration!

My point to Jim was that, irritatingly, I have forgotten what point of difference I thought there was between my view and block time. I did read the essay that you originally referred to in this string, but will read it & the other two again. I have got some short piece written (the core of which is 40 years old), which I really ought to review. Over the past months I have found that having responded on here I have ‘had enough’. And at present I am particularly busy because my son has bought a new property which needs renovation. But, on time, it will reveal no more than I have said here.

Time is not a dimension. [Indeed, there are not 3 spatial dimensions, this is just a human conceptualisation of the spatial possibilities. There are a finite number of directions, dependent upon what constitutes a spatial point in reality-but that is not the issue here]. There is, at any given point in time, only that which exists at that point. Colloquially known as the present. Neither the past nor the future exist. Only one form of existence in respect of anything can occur at a time (ie there is no change involved in it). There is no form of time (change) in any existent state (reality), that is an attribute of the difference between existent states (realities), ie the speed at which the change occurred.

As said above (and elsewhere on several occasions) when replying to Tom, time has been misconceived. Relativity is predicated on the hypothesis that objects alter in dimension when acted upon by a force, which also causes an alteration in momentum. This may or may not be correct. But has been confused with the consequences of that both in terms of space and time. Space varies because the dimension of the object has changed (supposedly). And similarly with time (as in timing). With a squashed (contracted) bus, the bus stop is further away than it would otherwise be when not squashed (space alters), and it will therefore take longer to get there than it would otherwise have done at that speed (timing alters). The variable in this hypothesis is object size, not time or space. Space-time as a conceptualisation of reality is incorrect.

Somewhat dangerously playing with words, one could then say that there is a block universe, or configuration (JCN), or existent state (me), at any given point in time, ie one particular, independent from observer, form. But that is not what is being said.

Thank you for the clarification! I now *finally* understand what you're saying and why we appeared to be talking past one another. Language and words are tricky things, as John Archibald Wheeler understood well.

________________________________

"Objects" do not persist, we conceptualise reality that way. Understandably. Think on this. I am 60. But am I? No. Because the entity known as Paul Reed is undergoing relentless and significant change. Apart from anything else, all parts which constitute this entity are replaced on various cycles.

________________________________

Paul, of course I could not possibly disagree with your statement above. But we are each talking about objects "persisting" in a far different sense of the term. When I talk about objects persisting I'm talking at a more fundamental level such as at the level of atoms. In my essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel' I wrote,

"The many bits and pieces of the universe which existed in The Age of Dinosaurs did not simply vanish. Quite the contrary; if someone had been so thoughtful as to put convenient little tags on all those small bits and pieces (say, on all the atoms, for example) which existed in The Age of Dinosaurs we would find that most of those very same small bits and pieces are still with us today. But they are arranged quite differently.

It is reasonable to postulate, for example, that a calcium atom which once made up a tiny part of the tooth of a Tyrannosaurus Rex might today be a tiny part of one of my own teeth, or a part of one of yours. Or that a carbon atom which once resided on the tip of Cleopatra’s eyelash may now reside on the tip of your eyelash, or perhaps it might be part of the salad you will have for dinner this evening."

It's *not* that dinosaurs or Paul Reed or jcns persist, but just that the many bits and pieces which make up the universe persist. These bits and pieces get rearranged (in accordance with the laws of physics). Each particular arrangement of these small bits and pieces represents what I call "a particular time." The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time. I believe it's correct that the spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed. So in this sense of the word, "things" *do* persist!

Your concept of a “particular time” is a tautology. By definition, any point in time is ‘particular’. The differentiation is not between “particular time” (one point in time) and “measure of elapsed time” (more than one point in time), both of these being timing. But between that which physically exists in reality, and the duration measuring system (timing), both of...

Your concept of a “particular time” is a tautology. By definition, any point in time is ‘particular’. The differentiation is not between “particular time” (one point in time) and “measure of elapsed time” (more than one point in time), both of these being timing. But between that which physically exists in reality, and the duration measuring system (timing), both of which are, unfortunately, referred to as time. What physically exists is the speed at which any given change occurs. We then have a measuring system to identify and quantify that. Another way of expressing this is that there is no ‘flow of time’, but existential change, which can be timed.

Take the phrase “time is routinely measured with amazing precision…”, or the ‘operational definition of time’. You then, quite rightly, express concerns about ‘lack of completeness’ and ‘logical circularity’. Indeed, it is nonsense. It is saying that timing is timing! But it is not time that is measured, but the speed at which any given change occurs. The process of timing involving the comparison of frequencies of change. You note this with your comments on what constitutes a clock, and language. The simple fact is that, logically, anything could be a clock (the reference), because everything is changing. It is just that the best clock (reference against which to compare frequencies of change) is one that exhibits a highly frequent, but constant, and easily identifiable, change. And you are correct with your notion of ‘bits and pieces’, but remember that any form of change thereto must constitute a different existent state (reality), not just what is noticeable to us.

On the topic of observation (or any form of sensing). Leaving aside the capabilities of individuals, observers do not ‘have different conceptions’, whether moving relative to each other or not. Neither can they ‘influence’ existence (one just causes an existent state to occur which otherwise would not have done so. Nothing is ‘influenced’ because nothing exists in advance of its existence). What happens is that organisms receive physically existent ‘representations’ of reality (eg light, noise, heat, vibration, etc). These are a reality in themselves, it is just that sensory detection systems have evolved to make ‘use’ of them. And as with any reality, they are subject to change. The point being that these tend to persist in much the same form over time, and for each existent state being ‘represented’ there are many of them. Organisms only know of reality via these, since they are trapped in a closed sensory loop. It may be that, and it may be logically inerrable that, these ‘sensory mediums’ are not fully functional in respect of this acquired role (eg photons do not detect everything), but that has no impact on physical existence, only what we can sense directly of it.

Special Relativity is an unreal circumstance where there is no gravity. So objects maintain their shape, rays of light travel in straight lines, only uniform rectilinear and non-rotary motion occurs, and Euclidean geometry is therefore applicable. Einstein said so (see for example-SR & GR 1916, section 18). It has nothing to do with how ‘light works’, or observation. Because all he said in 1905 was that light is always propagated at the same speed irrespective of the emitting body (which it is, because it is the result of an atomic interaction between that body and photons), and that it will continue to travel at that speed unless impinged upon (which it will, just like any other entity). If there is gravity, then light is affected (see for example-SR & GR, section 22).

And, yes, your ‘bit and pieces’ was noted. Whatever is the actuality, there is some thing (or more than one type) which is non-divisible (commonly known as elementary particle). But that changes, certainly in terms of spatial position, and then there are other attributes such as charge (?), I do not know. So, it (they) only ‘persist’, ie continue to exist over more than one point in time, in so far as they are the ‘same’ particle. The existent state they are in is different at different points in time.

This was my point behind the concept of Paul Reed, ball, or whatever. Death being just another reconfiguration(!), but from our perspective the entity has ceased. Whereas really, it was different at every point in time. I liked the idea of ‘tags’! Yep, we are made of recycled ‘stardust’, never mind about dinosaurs, that was much later.

It is properly expressed as, at a particular time there is a definitive arrangement. Which encompasses the fact that, at another particular time, there is a different arrangement. I know you say it is not in Paradigm, but your expression carries the connotation that time is somehow the determinant. The real questions are of course, what are these ‘bits and pieces’ (apart from being a hit with the Dave Clark Five!) and why and how are they relentlessly reconfiguring.

Just for the sake of comprehensiveness. It might be worth adding that, all this might be a load of rubbish, ie reality might ‘really’ be something entirely different. But we can only know what it is possible for us to experience, or based directly on that, hypothecate. We cannot transcend our own existence to discover the ‘real truth’, assuming there is one.

"Just for the sake of comprehensiveness. It might be worth adding that, all this might be a load of rubbish, ie reality might "really" be something entirely different. But we can only know what it is possible for us to experience, or based directly on that, hypothecate. We cannot transcend our own existence to discover the "real truth", assuming there is one."

Despite the obvious fallibility of our interpretations of empirical observations, such observations ultimately have proven, over the long run, to be our best, and perhaps ultimately our only, guide to what we may hold true about the nature of the universe. So with this thought in mind, the only thing we do is continue our quest for good explanations for what we observe. Figuring out the "real truth," assuming there is one (as you say), is way above my pay grade.

So on these lofty notes, perhaps we've flogged this poor horse sufficiently? Not sure where to go with this from here. We appear to see each other's points of view about as clearly as can be hoped. I suspect that we're not in total agreement on all points, but I'm pretty sure that we're also not in total disagreement.

Good luck with the renovation of your son's new property. Sounds like it will require you and your son to influence things going on around you in such a way as to cause an alteration in future configurations of the universe. Otherwise the property might be the same a year from now as it is today (barring other unforeseen influences, of course).

For an interesting essay on the topic, "Can Physics and Philosophy Get Along?" please see the following item which recently appeared in the New York Times: here.

I personally believe strongly, as everyone who looks at these blogs must know by now, that one area in which physics and philosophy desperately need to get along is with regard to understanding the fundamental nature of time. I believe few would argue with the assertion that a correct understanding of the nature of time is crucial to the advancement of science, and yet I believe there is good reason to suspect that the nature of time is *not* understood with sufficient clarity, as I pointed out in my essay 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time," which, again, will be found here.

This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest unresolved issues to be dealt with by contemporary science. But this is more than enough from me on the topic, at least for now. Apologies for running on so.

thank you for posting that article. I could say a lot about what I think regarding the need for explanation, relations of ideas, and not just matters of fact, and re. a beginning, but I feel like I've said it all before on FQXi and I don't want to upset other people by restating my opinions either.

The article did not mention the adverse philosophical consequences of Big Bang creating the space-time continuum giving complete determinism and a number of paradoxes. Which I think is an important consideration. Other people, including highly qualified physicists, might like to think that the universe just is paradoxical full stop. And they might accept perfectly well that everything is just destiny over which no one has any control or influence. So any notion of freewill or self determination or functional morality is just an illusion.

Though I can agree with them that how we feel about it is irrelevant to how the universe works, it is possible to have an explanatory framework allowing everything to be as it is without the paradoxes and without complete determinism. Which to mind seems preferable. That's the kind of multifaceted universe I would prefer to live in.

You are so right imo about time being the biggest problem. I also think your very clear essays are a very good introduction to another, better, way of thinking about time.

Philososphy has nothing to contribute. Science is proven knowledge about our existence. So, all that needed sorting out initially was how reality occurs (that includes what is known as time). Not specifically what does so.

Reality can only be that which is potentially sensorily experienceable by any organism. Any prognosis outside that is belief, however superficially scientific it may appear. Reality only exists for us because we (organisms) are aware of it, a function of evolution. It is a closed sensory loop. We cannot transcend that. So reality has a specific form of physical existence, awareness is a definable physical process, and there is a basis for proof (direct experience). All of which needs to be conformed to with any scientific hypothesis.

One area where problems start, apart from a tendency of humans to believe they can know what 'really' occurs, is alluded to by the caveat "potentially" above. It cannot be assumed that the media which have acquired, due to evolution, a role in sensory detection, nor the sensory capabilities themselves, are perfect. And much of reality occurs at a distance outwith sensory capability. But these are practical issues, within the sensory loop. Not metaphysical /philosophical ones. To further scientific knowledge then, proven direct experience has to be augmented by hypothetical knowledge (effectively indirect experience). And unfortunately, this allows, unless strict adherence to due process is maintained, for belief to creep in.

science does not prove. It can only disprove. Hypotheses are made and then tested. They are either dis-proven or they are not. Not dis-proven is not the same as proven. The greater the number of tests of a hypothesis (or of an explanatory theory) that show it not dis-proven the greater the likelihood of it being correct. However it does not matter how many times it has not been dis-proven, it need only be subsequently shown incorrect for it to be incorrect.

From Wikipedia, Karl Popper: "Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. The term "falsifiable" does not mean something is made false, but rather that, if it is false, it can be shown by observation or experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable."

!!!!! Just because the facts are obtained objectively and do not disprove the hypothesis, or theory, does not make the hypothesis, or theory, correct. Alternative hypotheses might also not be dis-proven by the same matters of fact.!!!!

I enjoy the web site "Hyperlipid" because numerous scientific papers are analysed and the flaws in design, technique and the conclusions drawn are pointed out. It shows how easy it is to present flawed conclusions as scientific facts. Even how it is possible to present a whole host of flawed papers with corroborating incorrect conclusions as a consistent body of scientific evidence.

Its far too easy for the results of a single experiment to be jumped upon by the media (or certain individuals) and hailed as proof of this or that, only to be later refuted by contradictory evidence. Public health information can be based upon incomplete information leading in the long term to poorer rather than better health. Which I think actually works to undermine public confidence in science. This has been particularly true for nutritional advice such as the questionable benefits of low fat diets and the questionable healthiness of poly unsaturated fats. I have also recently read in New scientist magazine that rather than sun block improving health it can contribute to a greater number of internal cancers and even the reappearance of rickets in children due to vitamin D deficiency.

"Though I can agree with them that how we feel about it is irrelevant to how the universe works, it is possible to have an explanatory framework allowing everything to be as it is without the paradoxes and without complete determinism. Which to mind seems preferable. That's the kind of multifaceted universe I would prefer to live in."

Amen!

"Philososphy has nothing to contribute. Science is proven knowledge about our existence."

I agree with Georgina's comments on this. I do believe that philosophy has something to contribute, but I acknowledge that I personally have a difficult time defining, even to myself, exactly what it is that philosophy contributes. I tend to come down to the notion that there are aspects of my reality which are outside the realm of things that are either provable or unprovable.

For the universe randomly to type the complete works of Shakespeare along with the Encyclopedia Britannica and for it to create all the sentient beings that have ever existed in the universe strains credulity. Non-randomness is needed to explain at least some of what we observe. Natural selection appears to bridge the amazing gap between random and non-random aspects of our reality. Perhaps the "why/how" which underlies natural selection, for example, straddles the gulf between science and philosophy for my purposes.

If a creature existed which could receive and process only one form of sensory data and no others, could that creature imagine other forms of sensory data such as those to which we have access? Is it possible that there could be numerous other forms of sensory data in the universe to which we have no access? If not, why not? Philosophy? Science?

As Shakespeare wisely penned, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

That is neither correct, nor what I said. Which was: “science is proven knowledge about our existence”. The proof being correspondence with direct experience (though sometimes only indirect experience hypothecated from that which is directly achievable, is possible). Apart from which, a...

That is neither correct, nor what I said. Which was: “science is proven knowledge about our existence”. The proof being correspondence with direct experience (though sometimes only indirect experience hypothecated from that which is directly achievable, is possible). Apart from which, a hypothesis is an abstraction (albeit yet to be proven) based on experienced facts, not something which creates facts. And if this abstracted relationship is proven to correspond with reality after due process, it then has the status of a theory or law. We do not always get this process correct, but that is a practical matter, not an underlying philosophical one.

Popper is talking rubbish. Because what he and many others, did, and still do, is to presume that reality is some sort of metaphysical entity. Which it is not. For us, which is all there is, it exists. And it does so in a particular form, as the result of a definitive process.

Yes, logically, there is always the possibility of an occurrence that is outwith any given theory. But that is a practical point, though he and the likes thinks it is some deep-seated metaphysical truth. The point being that, we cannot test every possible direct experience to confirm any given occurrence. But after (say) 10,000, we take it that the entity does exist. Indeed, direct experience of reality has proven that it is ‘stable’. That is, similar circumstances result in similar outcomes; it is not fundamentally random or bizarre, ie even where behaviour is random, that it will be so is predictable. So, in statistical terms, one only needs of small sample of experiences to infer what occurred (reality). Another problem here is the nonsense assumption that is characterised by the phrase ‘everybody creates their own reality’. Whereas, again, this is just a practical issue. In that individual processing of received ‘information’ can create differences, and that ‘information’ can be subjected to alteration during its existence and subsequent receipt by any given individual.

In other words. Correctness/falseness depends on confirmed experienceability. Because that is how reality is known to us, purely by virtue of sensory detection systems, within which we are trapped. It does not depend on the number of experiences underpinning it. What happens is that, for practical purposes, given known forms of behaviour, we make estimates on what level of experience is required to substantiate any given thing. And on occasions this sampling will fail, but that is a practical problem, not some innate, underlying metaphysical issue.

One does not need philosophy, and particularly, a ‘philosophy of science’. What one needs, as I have said so many times, is an understanding of the fundamental physical process which results in reality ‘occurring’ for us. And then a substantiated practical approach which properly balances the reliance on samples of experience with progressing knowledge. Adherence to due process will eventually identify any flaws which are bound to arise on occasions.

All of which is what you then refer to. Because: a) the flaws have been identified b) they can be made. It is a practical, not metaphysical issue.

“…but I acknowledge that I personally have a difficult time defining, even to myself, exactly what it is that philosophy contributes”

And therein lies the clue. It is irrelevant. If people want to expend energy in beliefs, so be it.

“I tend to come down to the notion that there are aspects of my reality which are outside the realm of things that are either provable or unprovable”

Indeed, but this has nothing to do with philosophy, neither can philosophy contribute anything. There are two types of circumstance where, physically, proof becomes a problem:

-practical situations where direct experience is an issue, which are the function of physical considerations ( I mentioned these a few posts ago)

-the simple fact that reality is a function of awareness, a phenomenon that has evolved. So we cannot transcend the sensory closed loop. But all that does is delineate reality, within which proof is possible, though at times very difficult, practically, to effect. Unfortunately, many humans do not accept, or even recognise, this inherent limitation, and think they can establish the ‘real’ truth.

“...strains credulity”

Why? If enough permutations occur, things happen. What does strain credulity is ‘how did this all come about’? But, by definition, we can never know. So from the scientific perspective, forget it. Start with what appears to us, and investigate it, as it appears to us.

“Is it possible that there could be numerous other forms of sensory data in the universe to which we have no access?”

Yes. Indeed, it is possible that the sensory capabilities we utilise are inadequate.

thank you very much for your supportive reply. It is really nice (and unusual) for me to get that kind of feedback.

Hi Paul,

Reality and what it is and isn't, and how the various branches of physics ought to fit within or are related to the ideas of reality are imo important philosophical issues. Not something that is irrelevant or obvious or best ignored. Physics needs the correct -relation of ideas- to accommodate the -matters of fact- that have been objectively accumulated. Objective measurements and other observations do not explain by themselves, they have to be interpreted within some kind of theoretical model, whether that is a new hypothesis or an established theory.

How different theoretical models, that are very well supported by experimental evidence, are related to each other, so that they can be compatible and not contradictory is initially a philosophical issue too. When the philosophical issues are resolved it can be considered and described mathematically. Those philosophical issues are in part what the explanatory framework I have shared is about.

“Reality and what it is and isn't, and how the various branches of physics ought to fit within or are related to the ideas of reality are imo important philosophical issues”

As I have said, resolving this has nothing to do with philosophy, or indeed any other form of belief system. It is a question as to what is the physical process which enables organisms to be aware of it. That is all there is. We only know of reality through an awareness of it, ie the evolution of sensory detection systems which utilised pre-existent physical phenomena. Physics needs an understanding as to how this occurs, and then to comply with it when compiling abstract explanations of sensed occurrences. In just the same way that an understanding of the fundamental nature of wood is required before embarking on some woodwork, ie attempting to cut a plank with grass cutters will not succeed.

"Popper is talking rubbish. Because what he and many others, did, and still do, is to presume that reality is some sort of metaphysical entity. Which it is not.

[....]

One does not need philosophy, and particularly, a "philosophy of science". What one needs, as I have said so many times, is an understanding of the fundamental physical process which results in reality "occurring" for us."

First, let me say that I think we're not really as far from agreement as it sometimes appears. And I think that if we could sit down face to face with a chalk board or white board we could soon clarify the areas where we appear to be in disagreement.

Paul, I can assure you that Popper is not talking rubbish. If that's the impression you have, it can only be that you don't understand what he's saying, in my opinion. I'm not sure what makes you think Popper and others think reality is some sort of metaphysical entity, and I'm not even sure what you mean by a metaphysical entity in this context.

The "philosophy of science," which is you say is not needed, is simply the collected thinking about how science goes about doing its job! If you've not already read it, I highly recommend Thomas S. Kuhn's book, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' An excellent look at some of the history of science and the philosophy of science.

On a personal note, I'm currently on travels, with only sporadic access to the Internet, so I'm not able to devote the time here that I'd like. Regardless, carry on!

Rubbish was harsh. But back in the 60’s, within the context of ‘overthrow authority/status quo’, this type of stuff, along with ‘there is no objective’, etc, was the new cool. Which is why I sat down and considered it at the...

Rubbish was harsh. But back in the 60’s, within the context of ‘overthrow authority/status quo’, this type of stuff, along with ‘there is no objective’, etc, was the new cool. Which is why I sat down and considered it at the time. I really would have thought that by now this would have ‘blown over’. However, what I said was correct. There is an underlying presumption that reality is metaphysical and that we only know one aspect. Another way of putting this is that science is one form of knowledge, based on certain procedures (hence the notion of the philosophy of science) and, for example, religion of another form of knowledge.

This is incorrect. There is only a reality as manifest to us via the sensory capabilities of the organisms we are aware of. That is it. We cannot know of anything else. Logically, there is always the possibility of ‘something else’. That is, if A, then there is the possibility of not-A. But it is only a possibility, and anyway, we can never know it. So this point, whilst correct, is irrelevant. What is relevant is establishing how the closed system within which we function, operates. The point being that whilst that is, logically, just one possible ‘perspective’, if the ‘closedness’ is validated, and more importantly, inherent in our very existence, then that provides a basis from which to establish objective knowledge. The output from belief is not objective knowledge.

Another way of expressing that is to point out that after each statement of fact, we could add the caveat: ‘given all knowledge at this point in time, and the constraints our existence’. The first part relating to practical considerations, ie there could be more knowledge to establish, which might then lead to a different explanation. The second part being a reference to the very nature of our existence and hence the fact that there is a possibility of not-our existence. The two are different, but often conflated. But if on the basis of existent physical phenomena, we establish logically how reality fundamentally occurs, then we only have practical issues. Metaphysics and philosophy are irrelevant, because they presume belief, not objective fact.

“The "philosophy of science," which is you say is not needed, is simply the collected thinking about how science goes about doing its job!”

Fine, but that is not philosophy, is it? Just a description of procedures, etc. And indeed, if how reality occurs (which is a consideration based on physical phenomena), was understood to begin with, then there would only be one set of procedures for what constitutes science. And certainly no need for philosophy to establish them, or ‘think’ about them afterwards. If anything, what you have described would constitute Sociology, anyway, ie why do certain groups view reality via certain methods.

Re your last sentence. That’s fine. I only come on here once a day, usually early morning. And then get on with life! Got to take the twins to school this morning as the other grandchild is an ice skater and going to a competition.

I believe I inadvertently got us off the track of our earlier discussion when I introduced the link to the New York Times article regarding whether or not physics and philosophy can get along. We now appear to be debating what is or is not philosophy and/or metaphysics.

Strangely enough (or perhaps not surprisingly, depending on one's leanings), even philosophers appear to be debating the same question, as can be found here.

Science is easier to define, thanks to Popper's notion that in order for something to qualify as science it must be falsifiable.

In this context, I'm confident that the paradigm for time which I've proposed falls well within the bounds of what is science, because it clearly and unambiguously rules out the possibility of time travel. Special relativity, which is based on the operational definition of time, allows for the possibility that time travel is theoretically possible. Both can't be correct; time travel either is or is not possible.

One potential source of ambiguity and confusion here lies in how one defines time travel. I believe I've been totally unambiguous on this point in my essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel.' The relativists have not been equally unambiguous, in my opinion. As Julian Barbour has written, correctly in my opinion, "Relativity is not about an abstract concept of time at all: it is about physical devices called clocks. Once we grasp that, many difficulties fall away."

As I understand it, the sort of time travel allegedly made theoretically possible by relativity is a consequence of different specific clocks speeding up or slowing down relative to one another due to their motion relative to one another. These effects, however, apply specifically to these particular clocks, and not to the universe as a whole. In my view, the only "clock" which really matters is the universe itself. Particular times are synonymous with particular configurations of the universe. If the configuration of any portion of the whole is changed, then the configuration of the whole is changed. In my view, the universe it a physically real entity which is undergoing an evolution governed by the laws of physics; we will neither rewind that evolution nor speed it up. We may, however, learn to understand it by further unraveling the laws of physics.

Philosophers have weighed in on the topic by raising issues such as the so-called "grandfather paradox," which certainly is interesting as a thought exercise, but unless time travel is possible the grandfather paradox is not falsifiable; no one will be traveling back in time and testing out whether it is or is not possible to kill his or her grandfather.

Not really. It is only one line of discussion amongst several, and it soon turns to the crux of the problem anyway. That is, how does reality occur, which, in science, is a physical issue, not one of belief. Philosophy is, like religions, a belief system, as it propounds an explanation of existence which is not based on proof. ...

Not really. It is only one line of discussion amongst several, and it soon turns to the crux of the problem anyway. That is, how does reality occur, which, in science, is a physical issue, not one of belief. Philosophy is, like religions, a belief system, as it propounds an explanation of existence which is not based on proof. The latter being determined by experienceability, because reality only occurs, for us, through awareness. In other words, science is correct, given the constraints of our existence/from our inevitable intrinsic perspective/any other such phrase. Science is an explanation of the knowable (or one could say a ‘religion of the knowable’). It is not concerned, metaphysically, with the unknowable (ie as opposed to that for which there is evidence that it could be knowable, but there are practical problems in achieving this). If the concept of falsifiability relates to experienceability, then that is OK. If it is just some abstract concept, then that is not. The point being that reality. for us, is not an abstract concept. It exists. And it does so in a particular physical form, as the result of a definable physical process.

SR & GR do not allow for ‘time travel’. The misinterpretation of the hypothesis does. As I said above, SR has specific conditions, it is not all that was written in 1905. Einstein defines it in 1916 (and possibly before in more obscure papers). Time and space are not the variables, but the consequences. The hypothesis is that objects alter dimension with the application of a differential force (eg gravity). And hence…..

‘Time travel’ cannot be possible because this relates to change in existent states (ie reality). And change only occurs in one direction. It can be quicker, but that is timing. In other words, a given sequence of change (movement, size, colour, whatever) occurred in a shorter duration than a similar one. The frequency of change was faster. Time travel is, like anything else, concerned with the frequency of change. Either, as at any given point in time (timing), or whilst the duration between to such points elapsed, specific existent states occurred. Relativity is neither about time nor clocks, but is predicated on the supposed alteration in dimension of matter. Neither are clocks about time, but timing. A clock is just the chosen frequency of change reference that is utilised to compare a disparate range of such. Timing is all about the comparison of frequencies of change.

“As I understand it, the sort of time travel allegedly made theoretically possible by relativity is a consequence of different specific clocks speeding up or slowing down relative to one another due to their motion relative to one another”

Yep, this is the core of the confusion. Which Einstein adds to. If dimension is altering, then space will ‘alter’, as will timing. ‘Alter’, except in the case of dimension, being an ontologically incorrect phrase, because there is nothing existent to alter. Really the concept is, space and timing will be different from that which would otherwise have obtained had matter not altered in dimension (whether it actually does or not is another issue). And in order to compare (relate) things, one must compare like with like, or allow for known variations, ie not compare thing with another thing which is contracted in dimension, unless allowance is made for that.

Motion is another consequence, because it is a function of force applied. In other words, it has nothing to do with motion, as such. It is just that variations in motion indicate that a differential in force is occurring. And if that is happening then dimension is also altering (allegedly). The cause is force, variance in motion being a more easily recognisable indication than variance in dimension. All these alterations then became conflated, not least because of the reason that the hypothesis was formulated in the first place. Note the alterations have the same value, ie they were seen as compensations for each other in order to explain events which should have occurred, but did not, apparently. There was unease about the mechanics of dimension alteration, and timing was more easily understood(!). So variance in timing, misunderstood as time, became a surrogate for variance in dimension.

This was then rationalised as an effect on clocks. These being matter, then changes in force applied would also have a dimensional effect on them. Which is true (if the relationship is true), except that it was said that the result of this physical effect would be an alteration in the ‘tick rate’. Not only that, but that alteration would be proportionate and uniform. In other words, timing would alter ‘perfectly’. This is nonsense. [Einstein 1905 section 4: “whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by 1- √(1 - v2/c2), seconds per second, or approximately, ½ v2/c2. From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by ½tv2/c2 “]. [Einstein SR & GR, section 23: “in every gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated (at rest). For this reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest with respect to the body of reference”].

“Philosophers have weighed in on the topic…”

And so have many others. It is not a philosophical point. All these so called paradoxes do not exist. They arise because of a misinterpretation of the original hypothesis, particularly confusion over time and timing. If one establishes how reality works first, then there is no problem. Whether matter does alter when a differential force is applied, and by how much, and what is the relationship, is an entirely different matter.

"Neither are clocks about time, but timing. A clock is just the chosen frequency of change reference that is utilised to compare a disparate range of such. Timing is all about the comparison of frequencies of change."

I think I understand the concept you are driving at here, Paul, but as I mentioned in an earlier post I find your terminology less than helpful. The problem is your use of the word "frequency," which has the concept of clock time built into it. We are accustomed to thinking about a frequency as being something like cycles per second. Perhaps think about using a different word to convey your concept, or perhaps explain it in a somewhat different way? Just a thought.

As I think we agree (if not, please explain how we differ), any obviously changing portion of the universe may be singled out and selected to serve as a clock. Some choices of what to use as a clock are wiser (in the sense of being more helpful) and more convenient than others. The original definition of the second was in terms of a fraction of a mean solar day. One revolution of the Earth around the sun served to define the unit of time we call a year. When we use a clock to "time" some event of interest, we are comparing one set of changes (the changes occurring in the event of interest) against another set of changes (the changes occurring in whatever we've chosen as our clock). Speed, which typically is measured in units such as meters per second, should, by rights, be a dimensionless quantity measured in meters per meter.

Offering unflattering critiques of relativity is a fruitless pursuit, in my opinion. If one chooses to accept the operational definition of time (time is that which is measured by clocks) as a starting point and then performs standard mathematical operations involving units of time derived from that definition, one arrives at an internally consistent system which spits out correct answers to questions posed. This is what allows us to make use of technological marvels such as the satellite-based Global Positioning System, for example.

This is extremely useful from a practical standpoint. But I believe that it does *not* reveal to us any "deep truths" about the underlying "nature of time." When the operational definition is used as the basis for concepts such as "block time" (in which all times -- past, present, and future -- are said to be equally real), for example, or as the basis for claiming that what we perceive as the flow of time is illusory, then I believe the concept is being extended beyond the boundaries of where it correctly applies. This strikes me as being an inappropriate (and unintended and/or unwitting) blurring of the boundary between mathematics and objective reality.

Notwithstanding that I might be able to find better expressions, the main problem is that I have to use the ‘usual’ words, but deploy them to explain a different configuration from the norm. I noted your comment on ‘frequency’ before. Yes, it is “clock time”, but this is timing. The phenomenon we refer to as ‘time’ is actually the rate (or frequency) at which change occurs. That is what it physically is. There is no existent entity which corresponds with ‘time’. Measuring that is timing. In other words we should be talking about change: what changed, and how quickly. The latter being quantifiable with a measuring system known as timing. The units of duration thereby established being also referred to as time, and are expressed in terms of days, minutes, etc. At any given point there is a definitive existent state. At another point, there is another such state. And so on. There are manifest differences between them, and there is a speed at which any given attribute of any given state is superseded by the subsequent one.

Yep, any form of change inherently constitutes a ‘clock’. Because timing is just measurement, which involves the comparison of the rate (frequency) at which existent states (reality) alter. As with any measuring system, one needs a reference (which in this case is a rate of change) that is clearly identifiable, fast, and has a high degree of constancy. Just to be pedantic. It is not “comparing one set of changes…against another set of changes”. It is the comparison of the rates (frequency) at which various changes occur – but I am sure that is what you meant. Speed is about change in spatial position. So using the measuring system (timing) it is change in distance (against a chosen reference) by duration. Alternatively one could express it in terms of a direct comparison of distances within the same duration.

The “operational definition of time” does not reveal any “deep truths” because it is just asserting that timing is timing. It does not identify what the physical phenomenon is that is being timed. What is occurring is being confused. At any given point, there can only be a ‘present’. More than one existent state in any given sequence cannot exist at a time. The previous state does not continue to exist when superseded by the subsequent one. In terms of movement, for example, ‘it’ no longer exists in the previous spatial position which ‘it’ occupied. Establish how reality occurs, for us, first, then explanations as to what and why this is happening, can follow.

Thank you for your words of clarification, which do in fact help me understand your thinking, and which continue to convince me that we are pretty much "in synch" on the topic.

Speaking of using language to describe and explain ideas, I recently read what strikes me as an apropos image: "Trying to describe ideas in words is like trying to build a tree out of lumber." But, for better or for worse, words are the lumber we have to work with; therefore, as stated by my hero John Archibald Wheeler, "We have to learn how to use our words."

A key element lacking my (our?) paradigm for the nature of time is a good, unambiguous way to explain what we mean when we use the word "duration." I wish that some really smart person would come up with a good, crystal clear way to merge our concept of "time" (configurations of the universe) with the notion of "timing" (how configurations of the universe change). Our discussions here have touched on this, but, unless I'm missing something, we haven't nailed it down adequately. This is a difficult topic. I'll continue thinking about it and trying to understand it. Bouncing ideas around in forums such as this is one way to do so.

Fwiw, as a result of our discussions here I've added a new paragraph to Section VII. of my on-line essay, 'Toward a Helpful Paradigm for the Nature of Time' as follows:

" When theories based on the operational definition lead to a claim that our primitive empirical observations regarding the flow of time are illusory, and when they lead to a claim that all times -- past, present, and future -- are equally real, we should -- at a minimum -- question whether the operational definition, along with the theories based on it, are perhaps being extended beyond their rightful range of applicability. If so, we would be at risk of blurring an important distinction between what is merely a mathematical description of reality and the underlying objective reality itself."

Not sure that this adds a great deal, but I wanted to make explicit what otherwise was merely implicit.

I personally think that we've perhaps just about "rung out" what we have to say on this topic, for now at least, but if you think otherwise I'm open to ideas on where to take it from here.

Duration is the quantity identified in any measuring system which compares the rates at which change occurs (usually a timing system), during which a specified change occurs.

Again to be pedantic, ‘time’ is not ‘configurations of the universe’, but the rate at which configurations supersede one another. Timing is just a measuring system. Try and forget the concept of ‘it’. Reality is relentless change, with only one form existing at any point. We, understandably and necessarily, conceptualise it in a more ‘stable’ form. That is, whilst any given configuration retains certain superficial attributes, we designate it as being the same ‘it’, and at best assert some characteristic of ‘it’ has altered (eg ‘it’ has moved). What is actually happening (as far as we can establish-there being no alternative for us-though logically there is a possibility thereof) is that there is an existent state (configuration), then another, and another, and so on. This turnover is at an extremely high rate/frequency, and is driven by any single form of change, because two different existent states cannot exist contemporaneously. There is no ‘it’, just change, which from a much higher level appears that nothing has happened in some instances.

Na, I’m not sure it “adds a great deal” either!

The ‘where to take it’ is to apply this proper construction as to how reality occurs to basic, standard theories, and you find they have a problem. But you will be attacked from all sides, or at best be ‘written off’ as propounding philosophy.

"Again to be pedantic, "time" is not "configurations of the universe", but the rate at which configurations supersede one another. Timing is just a measuring system. Try and forget the concept of "it"."

We seem to keep going round and round this same mulberry bush, Paul! To be pedantic, a particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by,...

"Again to be pedantic, "time" is not "configurations of the universe", but the rate at which configurations supersede one another. Timing is just a measuring system. Try and forget the concept of "it"."

We seem to keep going round and round this same mulberry bush, Paul! To be pedantic, a particular time is identically equivalent to, and is completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe. Sorry I didn't use the term "particular time," but when I say "time" I typically mean particular time. Yes, "timing," as you say, is some measure of how one particular time becomes another (how one particular configuration becomes another). I think we agree on this; we differ on using of the word "frequency" to describe it.

You appeared not to care for my image of a universe consisting of nothing more than a shoe box containing three billiard balls, but that image is instructive to think about. The three balls do not -- can not -- simultaneously have more than one particular configuration relative to one another at any one particular time, by definition! Think of the shoe box image as being an example of what I believe you had it mind when you wrote:

"there is an existent state (configuration), then another, and another, and so on. This turnover is at an extremely high rate/frequency, and is driven by any single form of change, because two different existent states cannot exist contemporaneously. There is no "it", just change,"

Yes, exactly! Imagine yourself as a disembodied observer inside the shoe box containing the three billiard balls. The only "clock" you'd have to work with would be the three billiard balls. Any one particular arrangement of the billiard balls relative to one another -- i.e., any particular configuration -- represents a particular time. How would we measure how one particular time becomes another? The only way to do so would be to devise some clever way to compare the evolving spatial relationships among the three balls, relative to one another. This really is no different from our real universe, except that our real universe has many more moving parts!

You have urged me to "forget the concept of 'it.'" If I correctly understand what you mean by those words you're preaching to the choir. I believe we are in violent agreement on this point! My paradigm essay includes the following:

"As Barbour wrote, '. . . the important thing is to get away from the idea that time is something. Time does not exist. All that exists are things that change. What we call time is - - in classical physics at least - - simply a complex of rules that govern the change.' [Barbour's italics.] [8]"

Regarding duration, physical portions of the universe endure; particular configurations of those physical portions of the universe relative to one another do not endure. The physical portions are analogous to the three billiard balls; the configurations are the arrangements of the balls relative to one another. If the configuration of the universe did not change, there would be no flow of time, just as there would be no flow of time in the shoe box if the arrangement of the three balls relative to one another did not change.

"The "where to take it" is to apply this proper construction as to how reality occurs to basic, standard theories, and you find they have a problem. But you will be attacked from all sides, or at best be "written off" as propounding philosophy."

We're in agreement about the need to apply this proper construction as to how reality occurs to basic, standard theories. I'm a bit more optimistic, however, about the possibility that at least some serious contemporary scientists may be willing to give these ideas serious consideration. I'm eagerly awaiting the publication of two new books on the nature of time by Lee Smolin later this year. He, more than many, has an open mind on the topic.

re. balls in boxes. Have you thought about moving the box? It is something I have previously talked to Paul, and I think others, about. The analogy did not seem to make an impression. The reason for the analogy was that not all motion and therefore change is obvious to the observer. Such as the entire motion of the Earth within the Object universe. Those things moving with the observer appear stationary from his perspective. That does not mean that they are stationary in a universal sense. The vital change that is occurring, giving passage of time, it seems to me, is all of the universal trajectories of everything. Which is not just the observable motion from the relative perspective of any single observer.

An observer inside the box with the balls can make measurements and base his assumptions about the changes that are occurring on them. Which is perceived change relative to him. It is affected by the transmission delay of light and also is not an objective perspective of the entire system.

One could consider a hypothetical instantaneously updated view of everything from outside the box.IE Where everything actually is rather than where it appears to be after the various lengths of delay due to different distances from the observer. From that hypothetical outside view the change of the entire system (at all scales) could be taken into account.

Move the box and everything inside at all scales has undergone change. Even if the relationships of the balls to each other has remained the same for the observer inside the box. Seems to me also that that continual change affecting everything with mass is a good candidate for the source of gravity.

We may or may not be “going round the mulberry bush”, but that is why I pick up on the odd statement. Because I have found before that people say, genuinely, that they agree with me, but then it transpires they are agreeing with a misinterpretation. I may be wrong of course, but the start point is to address what I am actually saying (which I always try my best to articulate...

We may or may not be “going round the mulberry bush”, but that is why I pick up on the odd statement. Because I have found before that people say, genuinely, that they agree with me, but then it transpires they are agreeing with a misinterpretation. I may be wrong of course, but the start point is to address what I am actually saying (which I always try my best to articulate clearly).

For example, take what you then say in the second paragraph. Again this may just be expression rather intended meaning…but…”a particular time” (which is timing, not time) is neither “identically equivalent to”, nor “completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe”. It is that at any given point in time (as in timing) there is a specific existent state (configuration in the widest sense of the word, not just spatial position). In the sentence from me that you are commenting on, the word ‘time’ does not relate to the measuring system, timing, but to the physical existent phenomenon. Which most people confuse, but is actually the rate/frequency at which any given change occurs. As I have said before, we should really be referring to, when alluding to what is physically occurring, change. Then we can speak of the speed at which any given example occurs, which can be timed. But we are stuck with this label ‘time’ also referring to some physical phenomenon. And it is not a matter of disagreeing on the word ‘frequency’, that is precisely what occurs and is being measured.

Re your third paragraph. It was not a case of “I didn’t care for” your billiard balls analogy. What I pointed out then, as I do now with the sentence you quote, is that there is no such thing as billiard balls, in the sense of a persistent entity over points in time. They are a different entity at each point in time. They just appear to us to maintain certain superficial attributes, which we then misconstrue as being they are the same ‘thing’. Logically, the only real ‘its’ are elementary particles, ie that existent something (there may be different types thereof) which is indivisible. Then at each point in time, one can correctly refer to an ‘it’ which has changed in one or more attributes (ie moved, altered charge, whatever).

Thus in your next paragraph, neither the billiard balls as such, nor their arrangement relative to one another, in particular, would be the “only clock” I would have to work with. That is only correct if it is the only example of change I can perceive. And it is not a matter of measuring how “one particular time becomes another”, but a question of measuring how quickly one existent state was superseded by another, in respect of any given sequence (one of which, but only one, is relative spatial position of the entities known as billiard balls).

Re Barbour, it is not a question of getting away “from the idea that time is something”. The point is to understand what exactly is the physical phenomenon which generates the notion of time, and not confuse it with timing. Clearly something occurs, it is not an illusion or an abstract human construct. And it is the rate at which change occurs. It is not a “complex of rules that govern the change”, “simply” or otherwise. He is conflating time and timing. Neither is there any need for the caveat “in classical physics at least”, because this implies that physical reality occurs in different forms, which it does not.

“Regarding duration, physical portions of the universe endure; particular configurations of those physical portions of the universe relative to one another do not endure”.

All that “endures” are elementary particles, and even then at each point in time (as in timing) there is change. Configuration, in the sense of spatial position occupied, is just but one attribute which changes.

Have you got any ‘good’ references to Lee Smolin, I am sure over the past yer I have read something by him.

No, it did not make an “impression” then, anymore than it does now, because it I ontologically incorrect.

Within the closed system we inherently occupy, any spatial position can only be specified with reference to another spatial position. Which is fine, within the closed system, ie it is objectively valid. The crucial point being that one must then use the same reference point for any other comparable judgement. [Which is the crux of Relativity, ie take care, because apparently like entities moving at different speeds are not similar (immediately comparable) as their dimensions have altered (allegedly!)]. Movement being, of course, change in spatial position.

For reasons I don't understand, the FQXi "Preview Post Text" button would not allow me to preview the text of a lengthy reply I'd written to the two of you. Perhaps I was too verbose (no surprise there!) and exceeded some maximum length criterion? At any rate, I did not "Submit New Post," because of ugly typographical issues which typically arise from having quotes within quotes, etc.

I assure you, however, that my reply was a real "corker," as they say, and would have convinced you beyond all doubt of the wisdom of my thinking! You may just need to trust me on that. Will try again later to add that post and hope for better results.

Actually, I may try breaking my reply into two parts and see if that helps. If so, you'll later be getting a Part I and Part II from me.

[Here's my try at a Part 1 of 2; it appears to be working as two shorter posts.]

I'll give it a go to address your latest posts in one reply.

"re. balls in boxes. Have you thought about moving the box?"

This is a reasonable question, Georgina, but I think the answer lies in the way I got onto the billiard ball image, which was as follows:

"[Paul], You appeared not to care for my image of a universe consisting of nothing more than a shoe box containing three billiard balls, but that image is instructive to think about."

A key point here, Georgina, is that the hypothetical "universe" proposed in this image consists of *nothing more than* the shoe box containing the three billiard balls. Period. That's the entire universe. "Moving the shoe box" implies moving it relative to something. But if the shoe box is all there is, then we cannot move it relative to anything.

In general, however, were the shoe box embedded in a bigger universe external to itself (which would be far different from what I had in mind), then moving the shoe box certainly would need to be considered. Many luminaries of science have thought and written about this sort of thing, and it would be presumptuous (not to mention futile) for me to try tossing off a quick, off the cuff comment on it here, but there certainly is much that can be said.

Along these lines, one of my ideas has been that our universe, like any closed system, must have a center of mass. If so, would there be some way in which all motion could be considered as being relative to that center of mass? Have you read Barbour's 'The End of Time'? Excellent book! I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but he certainly digs into these issues in an interesting and thought-provoking way. Although Barbour has written a number of interesting essays since that book was published in 1999, a new book updating his thinking is long overdue, imo.

Paul, regarding the mulberry bush, thank you for persevering in your efforts to explain your thinking. I'm frankly astounded at how difficult it is for us (or probably for anyone) to communicate clearly on this topic, despite all of our best efforts to do so. You wrote:

Paul, regarding the mulberry bush, thank you for persevering in your efforts to explain your thinking. I'm frankly astounded at how difficult it is for us (or probably for anyone) to communicate clearly on this topic, despite all of our best efforts to do so. You wrote:

"I have found before that people say, genuinely, that they agree with me, but then it transpires they are agreeing with a misinterpretation."

Yes, despite our best efforts, this is a pitfall we all need to be wary of! And I believe you're correct; you and I really apparently are *not* in synch, contrary to what I'd formerly thought. But I think that a mutual comprehension (if not necessarily agreement) is still possible. Let me try explaining my concept using different, hopefully clearer, less ambiguous words.

We are wrapping ourselves around the axel of the difference between our meanings of "time" vs. "timing." Here is a new attempt to be clear: Please imagine, if you will, that the speed of light is infinite (this is a thought experiment). We are some godlike being, and we stand outside the universe and take a snapshot of the entire universe with our Brownie camera. Oh, and since we're godlike, our Brownie has infinite resolution, too, so it can capture the positions of every single atom and even every single subatomic particle in the universe. Then a snapshot from this marvelous Brownie would constitute an image of what I call "a particular time." It would be an image of a particular configuration of the universe. (This also is what I think Brian Greene meant when he wrote about a mental freeze-frame image of the entire universe.)

If the god-like photographer examined the image from his Brownie and saw that it included dinosaurs living on the planet Earth, then the particular time captured in the image would equate to what we call the age of dinosaurs. If the image included homo sapiens with laptop computers, then the particular time captured in the image would be what we call the late 20th century or early 21st century.

These snapshots reveal no motion; they are still photos, and they reveal only particular configurations of the universe, which I equate with particular times. In order to talk about timing, our god-like photographer would need something like a movie camera. Then he/she could choose some set of objects on display in the "movie" to use as the clock of record and then "time" other changes on the basis of that clock. That would be "timing," in my view.

Regarding the shoe box and billiard balls, Paul, I made the unfortunate assumption that you would understand (you *are* a mind reader, are you not?!) that the billiard balls in the shoe box were intended to represent irreducible, elementary particles having no smaller, internal parts. So in fact, the billiard balls (irreducible particles) *would* be the only things you'd have to use as a clock. And how, exactly, would this differ from our real universe, other than the fact that the latter has far more moving parts?

In a post from 10 May I wrote:

"It's *not* that dinosaurs or Paul Reed or jcns persist, but just that the many bits and pieces which make up the universe persist. These bits and pieces get rearranged (in accordance with the laws of physics). Each particular arrangement of these small bits and pieces represents what I call "a particular time." The evolution of the physical universe is what we perceive as the flow of time. I believe it's correct that the spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed. So in this sense of the word, "things" *do* persist!"

And I stand by that statement.

Regarding Lee Smolin, the book I quoted in my paradigm essay, 'The Trouble With Physics' would be a good introduction to his thinking. I've read all of his published books, a listing of which will be found on Amazon under his name. I'm really curious about why he will be publishing *two* books on the nature of time later this year! Why two? I guess we'll need to wait and see. As they say, time will tell!

thank you for your very clear explanations once again. Yes if they were the whole universe comparison would not be possible.When I have used balls in a box as an analogy in the past it has been -any system- under consideration and not the entire Object universe. Not the same analogy as your own.

When you get outside of your box universe and have hypothetical instantaneous information -then- you get your particular time. That is what I've been calling Unitemporal-Now. It's the same, using your words, "particular time" everywhere in the Object universe. Just one, using your word "configuration"

- not many different times and corresponding arrangements existing together in the one space-time continuum Universe. That continuum is imo not the material Object universe composed of atoms and fermion particles- but has been inferred from EM data persisting in the environment from events that have occurred, that can be used to fabricate the observed Image reality and Image universe.

“That's the entire universe. "Moving the shoe box" implies moving it relative to something. But if the shoe box is all there is, then we cannot move it relative to anything”

Correct. Though more importantly, as I have said many times (including to Georgina), we cannot know that the box is moved, because we can only know of the contents of the box and how the box is constituted to us. We are of the box and cannot know of anything extrinsic to it (if there is), or, which is the same logical point, any other way in which the box may be constituted other than how it is to us.

“…like any closed system, must have a center of mass”

Why?

Re Part 2.

Brownie camera? You are showing your age!!

“…so it can capture the positions of every single atom and even every single subatomic particle in the universe”

Careful here, because that depends on what basis the camera is receiving its information. If it is relying on light, then what it captures is a light based representation of reality at a given point in time. Whilst the camera may be capable of of collecting, without distortion. every piece of information received, questions need to be asked about the capability of light to fulfil its role. Really my point here is to stress that we (like the camera) do not sense reality directly, but receive representations of it (which are physically existent). But having said that I know what you mean by this example. Except, as I have said before, any time is a ‘particular time’ (as in timing), the real point is that there is only one existent state at a time. And it is in a sequence whereby each one is superseded by another relentlessly and very quickly. So, by definition, one can only capture one state at a time (assuming one has a detection system capable of doing so).

“These snapshots reveal no motion”

Correct…but a more accurate statement is “no change”. By definition there is no form of change (ie not just motion) within any given physically existent state. Because change is difference, which involves more than one. And there can only be one physically existent state (in respect of any given sequence) in existence at a time. So, change is the difference between consecutive states, it is not an attribute of any given state. A “particular time” is timing. Timing involves ‘particular times’. They are not something else, specifically they are not what is meant to be referred to by the concept: time. You do not need a movie camera, per se. A particular time could have been recorded on the ‘still photos’, or they can be compared directly, and one can extablish that whilst x occurred y occurred (which is what you say). That just eliminates the use of timing units, the common denominator. Timing is the comparison of frequencies of change.

I did wonder whether the billiard balls were elementary particles. But, as previously explained, this makes no difference to the point. At each point in time they are in a different existent state, and that is not just in respect of motion. Any attribute that is liable to change could be used as the ‘clock’.

Hmm, re Lee Smolin, hopefully I can find some essay here which conveys the essence of his thinking. How anyone can write more than a page on the subjet of time is difficult for me to conceive, let alone a book or two.

I'm glad you found my explanations clear and reassuring, Georgina. I don't see much of a gulf between our thinking on these topics. What occasionally might appear to be differences often can be attributed to the difficulty of explaining complicated ideas with words. It's the "building a tree out of lumber" problem to which I alluded in an earlier post. Words too...

I'm glad you found my explanations clear and reassuring, Georgina. I don't see much of a gulf between our thinking on these topics. What occasionally might appear to be differences often can be attributed to the difficulty of explaining complicated ideas with words. It's the "building a tree out of lumber" problem to which I alluded in an earlier post. Words too often tend to be blunt instruments where fine, precision tools are required.

Paul, you commented,

"'like any closed system, must have a center of mass'

Why?"

Wherever there is mass there will be a center of mass. It's unavoidable. The following was cut and pasted from Wikipedia:

"In physics, the center of mass or barycenter is the weighted average location of all the mass in a body or group of bodies."

Nothing mysterious about it so far as I can see, unless I'm missing your point here.

_______________

"the real point is that there is only one existent state at a time. And it is in a sequence whereby each one is superseded by another relentlessly and very quickly."

We're in agreement about there being only one existent state at a time. In my jargon or lexicon, each existent state is identically equivalent to one, and only one, particular time.

We begin to part ways when you talk about each existent state being superseded by another "relentlessly and quickly." First, I'm not sure what you mean by the word "relentlessly." I suspect you mean something like "unceasingly"? Question: if change ceased to occur, how would we know? We wouldn't. We couldn't. So what is the point of saying that it occurs relentlessly or unceasingly (or other words meaning the same)? And what do you mean by the word "quickly"? Quickly relative to what?

Let me propose another thought experiment. Suppose the entire universe consists of nothing but two billiard balls (read this to mean two not further divisible elementary particles) and a tape measure. That's the whole universe. The two billiard balls are located together near the zero point of the tape measure. Nothing changes. Could we determine how long the balls and tape measure have remained in this one configuration, i.e., in this one existent state, as you call it? A minute? An hour? A century? An eternity? No way to say. Now, suppose that one ball remains at the zero mark of the tape measure and the other ball begins to move away down the length of the tape. Could we determine how "quickly" the ball is moving? Quickly is meaningless unless we specify quickly relative to what. Relative to the tape measure is not helpful either. Simply moving from the zero mark to the five meter mark, for example, could have happened either very quickly or very slowly. We'd have no way of knowing.

_______________

"Timing is the comparison of frequencies of change."

I hope you can forgive me for being hopelessly dense, Paul, but I still have no idea what that sentence means. (Please see above.)

___________________

"Hmm, re Lee Smolin, hopefully I can find some essay here which conveys the essence of his thinking. How anyone can write more than a page on the subjet of time is difficult for me to conceive, let alone a book or two."

I trust that you're joking, of course. Otherwise, one might surmise from this comment that you've perhaps decided to reinvent this wheel single-handedly, without cluttering your mind what others already have thought and written on the topic? I admire anyone who likes to do things for him or her self. But one of the advantages of living in a literate world is being able to benefit from thinking already done by others.

Quite a few very smart people already have done a lot of thinking about this topic. To expect success on your own while ignoring what they've already thought and written, or to hope you can find their thinking all boiled down to a page or two strikes me a just a wee bit unrealistic. A comment such as the one above makes it sound as though you're totally unfamiliar with the concept of doing research. If so, all I can say is good luck figuring it all out on your own! I personally can use all the help that's available.

: ) Perhaps reassuring was not sufficiently enthusiastic. I though of saying a marvel- but that seemed too enthusiastic. I do like the reassurance that I'm not thinking about things in an entirely nonsensical and useless way, because someone else is thinking along the same lines. The particular words that you are using, which you have clearly defined, work well to explain what you mean and you use them consistently. So for me there is no problem with the language, it just happens to be different from my own choice of words.

Re mass: understood. This is a logical statement, ie if there is mass (or whatever) then there must be a ‘centre’ (which has a definition) to it at any given point in time. OK, but not sure where that leads us (?).

“We're in agreement about there being only one existent state at a time. In my jargon or lexicon, each existent state is identically equivalent to one, and...

Re mass: understood. This is a logical statement, ie if there is mass (or whatever) then there must be a ‘centre’ (which has a definition) to it at any given point in time. OK, but not sure where that leads us (?).

“We're in agreement about there being only one existent state at a time. In my jargon or lexicon, each existent state is identically equivalent to one, and only one, particular time”

It is this expression that keeps worrying me. It is not “jargon” & not “equivalent” to. You have said it in the first sentence, ie “at a time”.

Relentlessly: you certainly would soon know if change stopped.

Quickly: when compared to other changes.

No, you could not “determine how long the balls and tape measure have remained in this one configuration”, because, as you stipulated, “nothing changes”. It is one existent state, ad infinitum, nothing happens. But the reality manifest to us is not like that, there is change.

Then, in the next scenario, yes, you could “determine how "quickly" the ball is moving?” Because you have a difference, ie something has changed. And the answer is not “meaningless”, it is correct, within the confines that it is being calculated in (which is, by your definition, all there is). It is what we know. Your last sentence is incorrect, we can only know what it is possible for us to know. And I would suggest that describing the rate at which change occurs in elementary particles as ‘quickly’ is a safe one!

Timing is the comparison of frequencies of change.

Ask yourself, what are you actually doing when you look at your watch and time something. The answer is, you are comparing so many oscillations in quartz with a specific sequence of change. Really you should be saying, it took that leaf x trillion oscillations to turn brown, or y trillion oscillations for the man to move from A to B. Timing is a measuring system for comparing disparate rates at which change occurs.

“I trust that you're joking, of course”. No, I would struggle to say more than what follows (though reading through I could probably improve the grammar). What is the point in recanting what everybody else has said? Just say what it is. End of.

Time

The phenomenon commonly referred to as time is, in the physical reality known to us, the frequency at which change occurs. This could relate to alteration in any attribute in respect of any entity. When considering the calibration of such, or comparison across a disparate range, which is timing, there must be a form of change in reality which, as the fastest, would properly represent a unit of timing. While that would enable the most differentiated of measurement scales (a ‘tick’ rate for reality), it is not inherently necessary in order to carrying out timing.

Because timing, as with any measuring activity, revolves around the identification of difference by comparison. Timing being the comparison of frequencies of change. So it can be effected to a satisfactory degree with any common denominator reference point which has a high, constant, frequency of alteration. Furthermore, decomposition of physical reality to the elementary level, even if it could be achieved, would not assist in understanding most change processes. Which is why any given sequence of change can be resolved to an appropriate level, so long as it is an accurate, albeit conceptualised, perspective, commensurate with the attribute and entity under consideration. And then the resultant frequencies of change compared, or valued.

Change must involve a sequence of physically existent states, ie more than one. Because, then, and only then, can comparisons be effected, and differences identified. Which means that change cannot be an innate characteristic of any given physically existent state. For both existence, and then change to that existence, to occur, there must be discrete existent states. ‘Something’ must exist, for us, and it can only be in one existent state at a time, ie a state within which there is no change. Therefore, reality is ultimately a sequence of continuously changing discrete, static, physically existent states.

There is a tendency to conceive reality in terms of ‘A does X’ (where A is something, and X is a sequence). Whilst understandable, this is ontologically incorrect. Each existent state is, by definition, different. It is our perceptual inability to differentiate the full extent of the change that is occurring which leads to this method of thinking, and communicating, in terms of ‘thing’. But this implied persistence/continuity does not actually occur. Otherwise, there would be no means of differentiating one existent state from another, except on an arbitrary basis. Because, once some form of change has been included in the definition of any given existent state, it then becomes impossible to invoke a logical basis upon which to define that state as ceased, and differentiate it from another.

Since the fastest rate of change potentially experienceable is a function of the maximum frequency with which the medium conveying the information to us is able to differentiate it, then the representation that we receive could differ from actuality. If the medium transmitting the experienceable representation of a state has a reasonable constancy of movement, then any sequence of change will be perceived in the sequence in which it actually occurred. Whilst the frequency of change experienced, will depend on the relative spatial position (caused by relative movement) of those entities involved, because of the delay involved between physical existence and receipt of information about that.

As with any such system, the reference standard is arbitrary, the critical requirement for timing being that it has an intrinsic rate of change that is constant, and the system itself needs to be practical. Put simply, as every entity changes everything is effectively a ‘clock’. We could choose anything to determine duration, ie be the base unit of our duration measuring system.

It may be that reality, as a whole, is changing (eg expanding). But since this is omnipresent, it has no discernable effect. Neither is it time. It is just an example of change to the whole of reality, rather than its constituent parts. It may be possible to identify changes to this rate when comparing evidence of it in the past.

"I do like the reassurance that I'm not thinking about things in an entirely nonsensical and useless way, because someone else is thinking along the same lines."

Ditto! At least we have the comfort of knowing that even if our way of thinking should turn out to be nonsensical and useless (which I seriously doubt!), at least we were not alone in being so cruelly deceived by Mother Nature. And the two of us are not alone; I believe that our fellow FQXi blogger Roy Johnstone shares our view of time, for example, and perhaps others. I'm optimistic that eventually our view will become the norm rather than the exception for the way people think about the nature of time.

I've been thinking about time in this way for so long (possibly longer than you've been on the Earth) that it seems to me like the norm. So much so, in fact, that I have to remind myself that not everyone shares this way of thinking. It truly does represent a fundamental paradigm shift, and one that apparently is not obvious to everyone.

I keep coming back to the image of the humble Necker Cube as an example. We can look at exactly the same objective reality (the Necker Cube image) and interpret what we are seeing in two different ways. Nothing changes other than our thought process. This is analogous to the paradigm shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican paradigms for cosmology. Nothing about the way the universe works was changed other than the way people thought about what they were observing. And yet this shift in thinking made possible a huge leap forward for science.

I firmly believe that a similar paradigm shift is needed in the way people think about time. The only thing any of us can do to encourage and promote such a paradigm shift is to offer our proposed paradigm in the clearest, most logical manner possible for consideration by intelligent people who have an interest in the topic. This FQXi website is among the best forums I've discovered for achieving this goal. I've also made some of my essays available on line in the hope that people who care enough about the topic to google it will discover them and perhaps read them with an open and curious mind and find them sensible and helpful.

It is a fact of life, however, that the marketplace for ideas is a busy and noisy place. Not everyone has an equally strong voice in this marketplace, and I believe that, overall, this is a good and necessary thing. The voice of a crackpot (of which there unfortunately is no shortage) should not have as loud a megaphone as someone who has devoted a lifetime to becoming expert on a topic. The Lee Smolins and Julian Barbours and Brian Greenes and Sean Carrolls and David Deutsches and Stephen Hawkings of the world, to name but a few, have demonstrated by their works that they deserve to have loud megaphones in the marketplace of ideas. Others, such as myself perhaps, can only hope to bring our ideas to the attention of those with clout in a way that will cause them at least to consider our ideas seriously. At that point, our ideas must speak for themselves and stand or fall on their own merit.

So this was simply my typical, long-winded way of saying "Hang in there, Georgina! If we're extremely fortunate we may live to see our ideas accepted more widely by those in the scientific and/or philosophical communities whose opinions get heard and matter." Or not. As usual, time will tell.

There is no point in recanting what everybody else has said. But there *is* some point in at least being *aware* of what others have said! Otherwise you waste a great deal of time and effort reinventing all sorts of wheels, some oval, some square, etc., looking for just the right thing.

I truly do admire your obvious passion and intensity regarding the way you think about the nature of time. We share more than a few of the same ideas, although we express them differently. And we also clearly disagree on some ideas. I appreciate your willingness to hang in here and to make an effort in different ways to express your ideas as clearly and constructively as possible. This is all any of us can do, and it's way more than many will make the effort to do.

That said, however, I'm becoming more and more convinced that we've gone round and round this same mulberry bush so many times that our feet are wearing a deep trench around the poor thing, which, given a heavy rain would become a moat! And neither of us is convincing the other of much of anything. So maybe it's time to give it a rest for now?

Not that you've asked for my advice, but that not withstanding I'll suggest that you might find it helpful (and interesting!) to read Julian Barbour's 'The End of Time,' just for openers, and then press on from there to read some of the other authors I've mentioned elsewhere, such as in the post to Georgina just above.

If you were stranded on a desert island and you wanted to build a radio to summon help and you were surrounded by books having titles such as 'How to Build a Radio Using Materials to Be Found on a Desert Island,' would you refrain from reading these books lest you be accused of recanting what others have said?

We're all just doing our best to make sense of this amazing universe in which we find ourselves, each in our own way. And who's to say which way is best? Hang in there, Paul, and good luck!

The quantum randomness might be noise to some. Just because scientists and engineers cannot control the quantum randomness doesn't mean that it is uncontrollable. You and I can believe whatever we wish; however, quantum randomness is like this backdoor into our physical universe. There is no scientific high quality evidence that anything exists in the randomness. It is an ocean of uncertainty and possibility.

I sense this has been posted in the wrong place(?), but it is an interesting statement. Whether "randomness" is "noise" (ie existent I presume) is one question. Another is, even if it is the physical reality of some existent phenomena, then: So what?? There seems to be some general implication that random or erratic is 'strange', and of itself thus points to a 'deeper understanding'. There can be random, just as there can be non-random. Assuming of course, as you quite rightly question, there is anyway. And this perceived characteristic is not just a reflection of the fact that this physical reality is very difficult to detect, and therefore a function of our analysis and not what exists.

I thought an experiment to verify the superluminal neutrinos, that can verify the possibility of the curvature of the elementary particles.

I call this Gelmini tunnel (it is a joke to remember the strength of nonsense): some horizontal drilling of a vacuum tube (using drilling rig) that, long some kilometres, and connected in horizontal, permit to obtain a verify of the superluminarity of the neutrinos (one can verify the difference in arrive time between vacuum tube, 730Km-70Km, and filled with water tube, 730Km); it is possible to use long, and old, tunnel with inner vacuum tube to verify all without high costs; it is only an idea, I have not verified the cost and the instrument precision.

I thought an other experiment to verify the number of elementary forces, two (low energy particles accelerator) rings where happen particle-antiparticle annihilations with collision with the same direction (it is opposite to the usual collision), so that the annihilation of the particles (with long lifetime) leave a residue double spin for the forces.

I'm not a scientist, but I have a very inquisitive mind, I'm always asking, who knew what when.

Science I have found isn't sure, but that's aright, considering how everything has congnative thought, who, does. Even a leopard has cognative thought, it hunts, I'm sure it knows it would have difficulty with bringing down an elephant.

Since that's the case, who says that there was a big bang, what if heaven, who made the universe, caused an implosion. That might explain why material which would be coming from a reversal in physics to have materail stricking the earth to date. If it was a big bang, an explosion, wouldn't the material from the explosion always be on the outer edge

As for time, didn't Father Georges LaMaitra have to use the 24 hour clock to determine the speed at which that material was coiming that strikes the earth. How else could he have figured out when the initial implosion occured?

Now, again, let me be clear, I'm not a scientest, but I have been in heaven, at a very early age,7. Since I have, and I passed through a dark chamber before arriving, there is every reason to believe that the dark chamber surrounds the universe. I could be wrong about the surround part, but it fits.

Now folks, I'm about to throw a curve ball.

Paleontologists can't be wrong about how everything came out of the ocean, period.

So, since that's the case, they're reading the history of us, the world, after the fact.

So, if everything has cognative thought where does that leave us with our suppositions concerning what occured, and what is about to occur. After all look at how science is saying that it all stops at 21 December this year, Phewy.

People should get a life and continue to learn as much as they can so they can take that into heaven when they leave here. That your life doesn't stop folks, guaranteed!

Take it from me heaven is there and all of you want to go.

Oh, as an aside, the lighthouse at Aexandria was kept lit by burning sulphur chucnks.

post approved

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Feb. 24, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT

Bernard, Everybody has his own experiences, these xperiences, these experiences are signals we recieve fromour senses, our senses conduct them to our brain in 200 milliseconds, this will be evaluated by our consciousness to the "reality" we seem to live in. so all we are aware of is always the past, it is our consciousness that is able to emit signals to this past for else the wave function of probability could not collapse to become an observable particle, this means that there is a sort of entanglement between our experienced NOW and the ORIGINAL PAST, leading to the experience of what we call "reality". Your experience of "heaven" , the entanglement between YOUR Consciuosness and a Total Simultaneity leading to a reality that has not been observed by other observers, and has lead to a reality that you call HEAVEN.

Like Peter Jackson and Walter Babin, he does not show awareness of Marmet's argument that the experiment by Michelson and Morley does NOT exclude the possibility of an absolute frame of reference.

Secondly he wrote:

"When it is proven experimentally with the proposed experiment that proton beam and electron beam attract, where the protons and electrons move in the same direction, it is undisputed proven that the EM-theory is false in this respect."

Didn't he understand that the direction of current is defined opposite to the direction of electron flow while in agreement with the direction of protons?

I have to apologize for not correctly explaining the old to me enigma van Togt reminded me of: Why does apparently nobody consider electrons repelling each other in a ray of electrons? Lets consider an electron ray of diameter d. If the electron density is equally distributed over r, then the compressing magnetic field approaches zero toward the middle of the ray. Electrostatic repulsion should be stronger. Shouldn't a steady ray of electrons in this respect behave similar to a conductor in case of alternating current? If not so, I guess our models of charged particles might be a bit naive.

Maybe you meant Sir George Biddell Airy when you wrote Sir Geofry Air.

Instead of listing more problems I had when reading your book, I should appreciate your effort to advocate for an ether theory.

You wrote with reference to the experiment by Michelson and Morley:

"The rejection of the hypothesis of absolute ether appears to be correct."

Well, it still does so to the large majority of scientists. Since you "published" a paper "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" in Galilean Electrodynamics 16,4,75, may I hope you are in position and willing to make this paper as well as belonging ones accessible to me?

What I consider a key paper by Paul Marmet has also been "published" in GED. Its manuscript was available to me free at newtonphysics as "to be published in GED". I consider Norbert Feist's Fig. 7 in Proc. of the NPA Vol. 6, No. 2, 1-4 compelling experimental evidence in support of Marmet's already convincing reasoning:

The double round-trip experiment by M&M and all similar ones did neither exclude nor confirm the existence of an ether and more generally of an absolute frame of reference.

A huge number of efforts to increase the accuracy of the null result was in vain. Not the result but the expectation was wrong.

A preferred absolute frame of reference is therefore NOT impossible. Please consider also the results by Shtyrkov and by other dissidents.

Generations of physicists and teachers of physics may blush. Even worse, theories by Lorentz, Poincaré, and subsequent ones up to the humble request for dealing with twin paradox were not necessary at all.

You wrote:"Since you "published" a paper "Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether" in Galilean Electrodynamics 16,4,75, may I hope you are in position and willing to make this paper as well as belonging ones accessible to me?"

Thank you. I wrote "published" instead of published because GED seems to be not available in public libraries.

Did you read the GED papers by Marmet, by Feist, by Taylor, and by Don Johnson (vol. 16, No. 1, 3-7)? The latter dealt with aberration. Incidentally, in a vixra paper, Peter Jackson claims having revealed a decisive error by Lodge. Do you support his opinion?

I am sometimes very surprised to see the interpretation of the relativity. This relativity says that the mass curves the space and that the light for our 3d perceptions is c implying the special relativity. In fact it exists perhaps 30 persons on this earth understanding the realtivity. The real ask is so, but why they insist with bizare irrationalities.The relativity is rational and even proportional in all calculations.The paradoxs are not necessary beause they are simply due to relativistic abberrations. The relativity is to relativate in fact.So why people does not relativate their reasoning? The sciences are exact and precise in all analyzes considering the universal domain and its limits of evolution, relativistic furthermore.

Is it improtant to invest the funds for pseudo experiments, no of course.

Is it more important to focus on deterministic sciences imrpioving our society, global, yes of course! So why the relativity is not inserted in this philosophical point of vue.

The relativity permits the evolution because the mass polarises the light.The spherization implies the complexcity by polarization of quantum spheres of mass and the quantum spheres of light due to the synchronization of volumes and rotations spinal and orbital.Don't forget that the serie of uniqueness at the quantum scale and at the cosmological scale are finite(groups)inside a finite universal sphere in optimization of mass.

In the post above you mention my name with respect to Marmet's argument regarding the M&M interpretation.

As you should well remember I am quite familiar with, and in agreement with, most of Marmet's intuitive propositions, including that M&M does not necessarily preclude an absolute frame of reference. Of course neither does it prove or actually support such.

I have gone a little further in this regard however. Agreeing that ultimately an 'absolute' frame of reference for the universe is entirely logical, but also that it has little relevance locally in our universe in which only the immediate background frame has any direct relevance as a state of motion against which c is referred and therefore defined.

(Smoot etc's 370km/sec anisotropy towards Leo is of course of our cluster wrt the universe centre NOT our planet in the solar system, or that through the galaxy. - We are purely a local CMBR 'frame last scattered')

All states of motion are only states of motion and quantifiable in and wrt the local background. This is the 'next frame up' of not quite infinitely many. It is a sad failure of logic that we have so far not recognised this essential kinetically nested relationship. Is any other ontology consistent?

So Eckard, are you really an advocate of ether; with just one 'absolute' ether frame?

I appreciate your support for what was explained by Marmet and experimentally shown e.g. by Norbert Feist. Doesn't it give rise to reconsider any suspected length contraction, local time, etc.?

Your idea of nested local frames of reference reminds me of the principle of smaller rockets that are accelerated against larger parts and are therefore reaching higher velocities. In so far it is seemingly plausible. However, I was trained in electrical engineering and then a researcher and teacher in this field for more than forty years. My models are fields without spatial limitation in empty space. Accordingly, I see in principle no localized electric field and relativity perhaps a similar approximation as e.g. linearizing of sound pressure in acoustics. I reiterate, I am not aware of an acoustic analog to what you are suggesting. There is no velocity wrt to the medium that exceeds the limit which depends on the properties of material. Likewise, there is certainly no light in excess of c wrt space.

I certainly agree there is no light travelling in excess of c WHERE it is travelling. But if a rocket is then fired towards the source, are you suggesting the light passing by the rocket slows down in deference to the rocket!? How would it know the rocket was even there? It is plainly ridiculous. So the light does c PLUS v wrt the rocket, unless it meets and interacts. Can it be more simple?

There is of course an acoustic analogy. If you accelerate your car towards a sound source, do the sound waves passing by your car say "Mien Got! Her Blumschein, I must slow down!!" You must command great respect if it did. But of course the waves MEETING your car are different case, - because they interact at the fine structure of course, which gives the Doppler shift of wavelength (so also f).

But 'simple' is different to 'simplistic'. We must un-learn the assumption of 'fields with no physical limits'. Simply consider if we are in the Earth's field (and ECRF) would we detect the field of Venus? If we leave our ionosphere into the solar wind and barycentric frame are we still in the ECRF?, And if we visit Andromeda, or even Saturn can we detect the field of Jupiter? (Jupiter's was found very large by both the Galileo and Voyager probes, but well defined, and not THAT large!

Abandoning old assumptions is the only route to new discovery.

Small rockets sent by large ones still have the limit of the 'next frame up' which is still the local c. What does work is collimated jets, tubes moving within tubes moving within tubes, ever larger and larger diameter. This is how astrophysical quasar jets work. We see them at apparent 8c (i.e. M87) but nothing does over c locally, (also due to the Rees-Sciama effect). This of course also has a sound analogy as you will see while watching the jet plane fly past yours in then opposite direction. Only when you MEET the sound from the other plane does it slow down and increase in pitch.

Yes, I did "reconsider suspected length contraction, local time, etc." And it all fell simply and logically into place as Doppler shift. John Minkowski and I now also have a new formulation for space-time and dilation from the Discrete Field Model, as the effect of diffraction and Doppler shift on signals denoting a 'period' or 'event' of non-zero time, entering a new mediums 'state of motion'. Embarrassingly we've now run our of anomalies and paradoxes to feed into the model to resolve. Do offer any.

I will none the less look up Norbert Feist. Is there anything above you find apparently inconsistent? Thank you.

Let's imagine two sources A and B of sound or light simultaneously emitting signal fronts that are propagating with the belonging c in opposite direction either toward or apart from each other. In this case the fronts are moving relative to each other with 2c. However this seemingly doubled speed cannot be used to transfer anything from A to B.

Consider a missile flying with 3 times 330m/s wrt ground. An additional velocity v=1500 m/s within its metal is possible. However, the transmitted by air sound cannot be heard at the target before the missile did reach it.

You wrote: "What does work is collimated jets, tubes moving within tubes moving within tubes, ever larger and larger diameter. This is how astrophysical quasar jets work. We see them at apparent 8c". With the word apparent, you seem to contradict yourself. The 990 + 1500 m/s are not perceivable to us.

You wrote: "when you MEET the sound from the other plane does it slow down and increase in pitch".

While pitch is a physiological rather than a physical quantity, the Doppler effect can actually be measured. However, does the sound really slow down? No. The Doppler effect depends on the relative velocity between sender and receiver. The emitted and transmitted (possibly to a variety of differently moving receivers) frequency is independent of this velocity.

You wrote:"I did "reconsider suspected length contraction, local time, etc." And it all fell simply and logically into place as Doppler shift. John Minkowski and I now also have a new formulation for space-time and dilation ...".

Length contraction, local time, etc. were introduced as to explain the unexpected null-result. What do you mean with "fell into place"? Didn't they simply vanish?

'Seem' means 'apparent', and is moot here. I may 'seem' to contradict myself, but do not. Only false assumption makes it 'seem' so. Ergo;

There are TWO 'speeds'. First there is REAL speed, which is actual speed in and wrt the local background. This may also be measured by the rules of 'proper time'. In the case of light we use frequency, derived from c (correct under those rules) and wavelength lambda.

Secondly there is APPARENT speed, which we can only find by calculation, using evidence from a secondary scattered light signal. As with a bullet fired on a bus, the apparent speed observed from a DIFFERENT frame, the pavement, will be muzzle velocity plus bus velocity. This does NOT change it's real speed of course. So why do we assume it does in the case of light!? We are rather dumb to do so, but have got so used to it that can't see how wrong it is. We can never SEE that original light signal, only the new 'scattered signals' providing evidence of it's passing.

A you have already realised, but perhaps are not applying; when the original signal, or any signal, reaches our lens, it is again scattered to c and Doppler shifted.

Your first two paragraphs are indeed then fine and logical.

It is easy to see that you are forgetting or not applying the lessons agreed and learned by the ambulance when you say; "However, does the sound really slow down? No." but as you agreed on more careful consideration, at a quantum level the answer is; YES! The sound does 'SLOW DOWN' when moving from the emitter through the windscreen into the air (so wavelength reduces) and SPEEDS UP again when hitting the rear screen of the car (increasing wavelength again) just before reaching the passengers ear, even if pressed against the glass.

As I warned you, you have to think it through and 'rehearse' it many times for it to 'stick' and not be forgotten.

Frequency IS pitch, which you correctly say in NOT REAL. Only wavelength and distance are real, other 'qualities' are derived only from those.

'Fell into place' means 'were all simply explained' as something entirely different to assumption. Apply the above and you will find it yourself. Red and Blue shift are dilation and contraction. All clocks at rest locally run at the same speed. A signal (with a start and finish say one second apart) emitted in one frame will be Doppler shifted to a shorter or longer time when entering and measured in another frame. 'Proper time' is then not usable, so the relative frame speed v has to be added or subtracted to get the proper time equivalent, which is c in a vacuum or plasma, and c/n in other media.

A doctor may recommend reading that 3 times a day for a week to be effective!

"A doctor may recommend reading that 3 times a day for a week to be effective!"

While my title in engineering does not matter, I dealt enough with hearing as to know that pitch ascribes a perception while frequency is a physical quantity. There are for instance stunning illusions of endlessly rising or decreasing pitch.

Let me explain how I understand the notions frequency and velocity in case of periodical repetition of wave fronts that propagate from emitter via a first medium with c and a second medium with c/n to a receiver. Lets assume the emitter is moving relative to the second medium and the receiver. I only introduced the second medium in order to deal with your concerns.

Any velocity of a propagating wave front in a medium refers to that medium. My students calculated the velocity of signals in cables from their length divided by the directly measured by means of an oscilloscope time of travel. Nobody doubts that in case of changing distance between emitter and receiver the time of travel does also change. I do not see any reason for introducing what you called a second velocity, an APPARENT one.

The question remains what medium does the velocity of electromagnetic waves refer to? Does an absolute frame of reference exist or not? The null result of experiments by Michelson and many others seem to exclude the possibility of it, and Stokes' completely dragged ether was also considered untenable. Meanwhile Marmet, Feist, Shtyrkov, and others demonstrated that Michelson's expectation was wrong.

What about frequency, according to the Doppler effect, the receiver measures an increased one compared with the emitted frequency in case the distance between emitter and receiver gets shorter and a decreased one in the opposite case. Forget unnecessary confusion by consideration of lenses, scattering, etc.

“There are TWO 'speeds'. First there is REAL speed, which is actual speed in and wrt the local background. This may also be measured by the rules of 'proper time'”.

As said in Some When, where there are several parallel threads, let alone this one, it is not a case of wrt. Within our physical reality, light results from a reaction which means it starts with the same speed, on every occasion. [There is also not such thing as ‘proper time’].

“Secondly there is APPARENT speed”

This is wrt.

“We can never SEE that original light signal, only the new 'scattered signals' providing evidence of it's passing”

That is not the point either. There is an occurrence (existence). This instigates photon based representations thereof (commonly known as light). By comparison of different receipts of that, which involves timing, distance, movement, specific circumstances, we can extrapolate when and what that occurrence was.

You take me by surprise suggesting 'frequency' is a real physical property. As it is a derivative from two things, one of which is NOT a real physical property, then it CANNOT be a real property itself.

We are so used to treating it as such that we forget what is real and what is an effect.

Look at it again this way. You will of course agree that wavelength is a real physical property of a wave. Or perhaps the distance between two photons. It is measurable with a real ruler in the wave/photon frame and may be assigned a real fixed distance. Sound waves and light waves alike.

We observe, calculate and record the data of waves, via frequency with our watch, assuming a speed, by habit as we cannot SEE most waves. If we purely now change relative speed, either the propagation speed of the wave or the speed of the observer, do we change the fundamental physical thing we are measuring? No, we are purely changing the relative time we use in our calculation to obtain the abstract numerical term 'frequency' (f).

i.e. the wave has an assignable velocity wrt it's background, and observer motion does NOT CHANGE THAT! A million observers may have different speeds and in different directions, and what they find for f is all DIFFERENT. The ONLY fundamental constant physical quantity is the wavelength.

I have to smile, as you accepted and understood this very thing when we discussed the ambulance. But when we now come to APPLY it, you loose that and revert to old habits and false assumptions. It is wavelength that changes, both due to the refractive index n of a medium, AND kinetically due to the motion OF THE MEDIUM, because the start point arrives BEFORE the finish point, and the place it arrives at has moved.

Think again of the queue stepping onto a travelator. Only the physical DISTANCE between the people changes. A fixed observer finds the frequency they pass him by has NOT changed (because speed has). But, by also moving himself - he can derive any frequency he wishes! - for a fixed wavelength!!

Set periods of time are something we invented, They did not come from nature and can be used only for comparative purposes.

That is why I said we need to apply and rehearse the solution once we find it. Otherwise we go straight back to 'default mode' and the 100 year fog returns. You did not believe me then and still perhaps scoff now, but you have just proved it correct.

"...We observe, calculate and record the data of waves, via frequency with our watch, assuming a speed, by habit as we cannot SEE most waves. If we purely now change relative speed, either the propagation speed of the wave or the speed of the observer, do we change the fundamental physical thing we are measuring? No, we are purely changing the relative time we use in our calculation to obtain the abstract numerical term 'frequency' (f).

i.e. the wave has an assignable velocity wrt it's background, and observer motion does NOT CHANGE THAT! A million observers may have different speeds and in different directions, and what they find for f is all DIFFERENT. The ONLY fundamental constant physical quantity is the wavelength. ..."

Can you please address the above point of view from the perspective of an observer considering that the observer's perspective is not relevant until light is received? Please focus in on what occurs when the light is received. Do you say that frequency increases while the wavelength remains the same as before received? In other words, the observer's immediate environment changes the frequency but not the wavelength? When a wave of light is received, is its wavelength altered or not?

I haven't followed many of these exchanges. Just want to get refreshed about your point of view. My understanding is that you say that the speed of the light changes as it enters the receiver's immediate environment. Can you talk about both wavelength and frequency under the condition of light-speed changing? I don't have an objection in mind, I am just looking for clarification. Thank you.

I dislike distraction from your failure to justify the first postulate of SR.

To engineers, representations in terms of elapsed time are equivalent to corresponding ones in terms of frequency as are those on terms of radius and of wave number. The latter is also called spatial frequency.

In case a wave enters a different medium, I see it changing its wavelength and consequently its speed wrt medium. I consider it having different frequencies at emitter and receiver in case of changing distance between emitter and receiver. Objections?

“You take me by surprise suggesting 'frequency' is a real physical property…”

This was the subject of an exchange (between us) in Some When. The point is that there is a real occurrence.

The other point being, what is being measured? There is an effect resulting from the interaction of photons, which we can realise as an optical image of the reality involved. This effect, which is a real physical phenomenon, travels, somehow. A duration is taken to do so. It might be affected by circumstances en route. Wave or not, what we should be measuring is that. Which can only be achieved, and with some practical difficulty, by reverse engineering/extrapolation, from individual articulated perceptions.

And you are not "changing the relative time", the delays in receipt of information are changing. As explained in yet another recent exchange in some thread in Some When.

Delighted. Your blend of open minded comprehension is very welcome. I hope you're well. I'll backtrack a little;

"When light is received", let us say by an observer moving forward at v in a medium. The fluctuations arrive in turn at the lens surface fine structure (or Maxwell 'transition zone') electrons. Let us consider two wave peaks (or equally two 'photons'). Because time passes between their arrival the interaction point in space is different, and because the propagation speed in the lens (n=1.38) is slower, then there are TWO factors casing the distance between the peaks to reduce;

1.) The slower propagation rate. 2.) The kinetic effect of the motion of the refractive plane during the two interactions. BUT, initially (in 1 micron) there is NO change due to n as the n of plasma is ~1. So only the kinetic change applies.

Ergo; The WAVELENGTH, lambda, has reduced due to the motion of the receiver. Now, as c=f.lambda is a constant, any change in speed or lambda changes calculated frequency f, so f also changes as c is co-variant it has NOT changed.

However, and now you need you very best kinetic thinking cap; f ONLY changes if the observer ALSO changes frame, i.e. when considered from the NEW medium inertial frame. i.e. The observer the lens belongs to will find f also changed. (as f is all he can measure, and he is a bit dim, he forgets this is only a value calculated from lambda and c).

So let us now consider from the UNCHANGING observer frame of the incident medium, slow it down and and imagine we CAN see individual photons. We will then see find that light passing by us does so at say 1 photon per second. When it hits the electron cloud of the moving lens it is apparently 'slowed down' (from OUR frame) by the v of the observer. The next photon then hits the moving lens, and we find that the distance between the photons (lambda) has of course reduced. But now let's check the frequency. We do this with a fixed video camera, in our frame, and a watch. The photons are moving at c in the cloud, but as the lens is moving past us at v we find them doing c-v. BUT, they are now closer together (shorter lambda) so we find they still pass us at 1 photon per second! i.e;

For a second observer remaining at rest in the incident medium there is NO frequency change from the same change in WAVELENGTH!!!!!

And the implications of all this are MASSIVELY important, as it proves our assumptions have been incorrect. The zone around all mass does indeed change the speed of light to the local c, and BOTH WAYS. So SR was never needed in the first place.

I hope that's helped clarify the DFM model James, do say if not, there is a lot of 'dynamic logic' to absorb. I also hope it's reminded Paul and Eckard. Please do challenge and ask questions but guys, if you can't remember the kinetics and just wish to keep going in circles again, I'm sorry but I do have papers to finish.

It has, in that we have the same points here that have already been addressed in the past, and are currently being addressed in Some When.

Fundamentally, you are trying to define physical reality via observer frames. And SR "was never needed in the first place" is effectively what Einstein admits to by calling the circumstance SR, ie as opposed to the real world of GR. It is an unreal situation where there is no force, no alteration in the dimension of matter, light travels in straight lines at a constant speed, the only motion is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary, and mathematics assuming fixedness is useable.

"Paul; I cannot answer your last post or any similar post. But again may be able if you can comprehend my reply to James, and it's implications"

Why not? No, the response to James does not help, because it is the response we have already received, several times (not surprisingly because James asked a question we have already, and me in my way and Eckard in his, have raised substantive questions about it.

Peter/Eckard

Could I suggest we cease this dialogue in this Topic. It is disjointed enough in Some When, without a disjointed parallel set of threads here as well.

Thinking about the cat in a box again. The cat actualisation if alive will be able to move around in the box and depending on the radioactive decay or not of the potentially deadly chemical it is either in a living or dead state. So without knowing what is happening in the box there is potential fluctuation of position and either unaltered state or change in state. That could be represented as the probabilities of finding the cat in each position in each state and those probabilities are spread over the time that the box is closed, (or the iterations of the universe occurring while box is closed).

When the box is opened the iteration of the universe in which position and live dead status is sampled is selected. First selection. At that selection event the data enabling later knowledge of its state and position is formed by interaction of photons with the actualised cat. That em /photon data then cascades out from the cat towards the observer.Its journey spread over further iterations of the object universe. The live dead status of the cat is pre-written in the data as it is a product of interaction with the pre-existing actualisation.

The position and reference frame of the observer will determine which of the data in the environment will be selected. Second selection. What will be observed will also depend upon what has happened to the data between interaction with the actualisation and receipt by the observer.Following processing of the (second selection) data it will be possible to know the state and position of the cat upon opening of the box, from the manifestation/ output formed.

So there is a switch from consideration of what exists independently of the observer and is incompletely known, to what is experienced /observed by the observer and "known". If the observer is an organism the output is within the brain activity, electrical output, and not something existing separately in the external environment. Though the manifestation is provided to the conscious mind with the information/knowledge that this exists externally. The manifestation is not the actualisation, though it is through observation of manifestations that what exists externally and independently is thought to be known.

How the data spreads through the external environment can be modelled mathematically in different ways. There is a video of a lecture given by Sir Roger Penrose among the resources here. He is talking amongst other things about how the light cone could be represented by a quaternion structure. Which I thought interesting. I had been considering that it might be a good way to think about the distribution and receiving of em data. But had not visualised it in the way demonstrated, which is more complicated and far more amazing than my simple ideas about it. I thought it might be relevant to what Joy is talking about.

It seems to me the wave function that was the cat in the unopened box ceases to be when the box is opened. As a particular iteration or arrangement of the Object universe is chosen as the sample, in which the cat actualisation has a definite state. Though rather than that then being the known reality, another wave function can be thought of which is for the yet unreceived data relating to the box opening event, within the environment. Which ceases to be relevant when the second selection is made ie some of the data is received by the observer.

So for a macroscopic object it seems to me to be a little different than for a single particle. In both cases there will be the first selection ie when the sample is taken, which gives the iteration of the Object universe from which it is taken. But if there is only one particle there will be no second -selection-, only receipt of the single particle. The second selection for a macroscopic object gives the observer perspective, how the image of the object, from the first selection, will appear, its spatial orientation, brightness/contrast and partial determination of colour.

Its not that the macroscopic cat actualisation is different from the quantum reality of the particles it is made from, when both are unknown- but that the manifestation observed is.It is fabricated from the data that is received. It is a partial/limited viewpoint of everything it could be if all of the data in the environment reflected or emitted from the object was received, rather than just a (second) selection. It is also limited by the resolution and detection capabilities of the observer.

By first and second selection of data, the time-origin /when from / iteration, to which the image relates and the spatial form and orientation of the observed image are selected by the observer. The image that will be seen doe not exist out in that space and time in the present-now but is constructed subsequent to the event, that provided the data from which it is fabricated. Which allows relativity and non simultaneity of the observed reality.

A flea on that cat would have directly sensed what occurred! What happened in that box, happened. It has nothing to do with wave function, and what physical existence corresponds to this concept anyway? What is sensed are physically existent representations (light, smell, noise)which are mae 'available' as at the point in time when the box was opened. There is a "second selection" for one particle, because at any given point in time it is in a different existent state (position, charge, whatever).

The point about this so-called paradox, and others, is that the underlying philosophy which 'creates' them is flawed. There is nothing to explain. This is not how reality occurs.

RE your statement "this is not how reality occurs"- it is a way of describing what occurs, that is different from the everyday way of describing what we consider to be reality based upon our experiences. Those descriptions of what is happening at the quantum scale are not to do with experiences but what happens independently of observation. They involve using probabilities and calculations. Its a way of thinking about the unknown. Prior to the detection of information by which it can be known.

There is a series of really good lectures given by Richard Feynman available on the Resources link. In the very first lecture he talks about quantum electrodynamics after a very long but interesting introduction to reassure the audience.I think you might enjoy them.It certainly gives a feel for the difference between what happens and what one might think intuitively, and he is easy to listen to.

Ok you are right, there is a kind of second selection for the singular particle but it is far simpler than for the photon data relating to the macroscopic object. It can only be received or not. The when (during which iteration) being decided by the position of the observer relative to the source. But for the macroscopic scenario it is also the choice of which -out of all of the data- will be selected, rather than just the when that will happen. So still more. When -and what- not just when and if. I'll say instead that there is first and second selection for both but also an extra selection, a choice of a unique sample of data, for the macroscopic scenario.

Sorry I missed this. The point is that reality exists (for us) as the result of a definitive process. We cannot know what might 'really' occur. So, whilst some aspects of it must be hypothecated, because they are not directly experienceable, that is not the same as invoking processes to achieve that which are contrary to 'how it works'

Nope. The same ontologically flawed concepts of 'thing' (lumps!) and time obtain here. Or put the other way around to relate to my post above, an incorrect philosophy has been invoked as to how reality is constituted. And then there is an attempt to explain what appears to occur based on this.

DREAMS ARE ALL OF THIS: Quantum gravity depends upon the half force/strength of both inertia and gravity in keeping with fundamental instantaneity and fundamental particle/wave. F=ma is then shown fundamentally.